ff ( 0L_

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2019 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/introductiontoloOOOOmari
AN INTRODUCTION TO LOGIC
AN INTRODUCTION
TO LOGIC

By

JACQUES MARITAIN

TRANSLATED BY

IMELDA CHOQUETTE

NEW YORK
SHEED & WARD
1937
ti mns J. Bata Library
TRENT
PETERBOROUGH,
gc III .*132 I°I3'1

PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

UY THE POLYGRAPHIC COMPANY OF AMERICA. N.Y.
 TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE
In doing this translation I have tried to keep in mind
that its purpose is simply to make M. Maritain’s Petite
Logique available to the English-reading public. Therefore
I have been faithful to the precision and compactness of
the original at the expense of fluency and the niceties of
literary expression. The eighth French edition was used
and all available notes re-checked.
I am quite unable to express my appreciation to Dr.
Gerald B. Phelan, President of the Institute of Mediaeval
Studies, Toronto, for his unfailing patience and care in
reading the manuscript, and for the numerous corrections
which he made. I wish also to acknowledge my sincere
gratitude to Dr. Daniel C. Walsh, for his kind assistance
and valuable suggestions, to Rev. John J. Hartigan and all
my friends at Manhattanville, without whose help and
encouragement this translation would neither have been
completed nor even begun.
I. C.
Manhattanville ,
April, 1937.
 FOREWORD
I
In composing these elements of Logic we have
endeavoured to distinguish carefully between what belongs
to Logic itself, which has for its object a being of reason, the
second intentions of the mind (intentiones secundae), and what
belongs to Critique, which is a part of Metaphysics and has
for its object real being itself in its relation to the knowing
mind. This distinction is an extremely delicate one, for many
problems overlap both disciplines, and nevertheless very
necessary, for it is of foremost importance that the sciences
be kept within the strict limits of their formal object.
We have thus been led to reserve for Critique several
questions which are generally studied in treatises on Logic,
particularly in Logica Major, for example the (metaphysical)
discussion of nominalism and realism, the controversies
concerning the nature of science and of ordinary knowledge,
the value of first principles and the manner in which they
are known by us, etc., and finally the question of the
classification of the sciences (for we must first know what
science is, and what its value, before classifying the sciences,
and it belongs to the sage, that is to the Metaphysician, to
order the sciences). Therefore the question of the methods
of the different sciences, which cannot suitably be studied
until the object and value of the sciences have first been deter¬
mined, shall also be reserved for the treatise on Critique.
Having thus relieved Greater Logic (Logica Major) of a
good deal of extraneous material, we have been able to
restore to it many questions with which it is really con¬
cerned and which needlessly burden Lesser Logic (Logica
Minor, formal Logic) in most scholastic manuals. By
means of this general redistribution, wherein we have tried
to remain faithful to the spirit of Aristotle and the ancient
scholastics, we hope to have obtained certain pedagogical
vi
 FOREWORD Vll

advantages of clarity and precision, and to be enabled to

present the problems of Logic and Critique in a sufficiently
natural order of increasing complexity and difficulty.
As these problems are in themselves difficult because of
their high degree of abstraction, some professors may
perhaps find it more convenient in teaching (in introducing
students to philosophy in a single scholastic year) to depart
from the normal order indicated in our Introduction to Philoso¬
phyj1 (i Minor and Major Logic, 2 Cosmology and Psy¬
chology, 3 Criticism as the first part of Metaphysics) and
to replace it in practice by the following order which reaches
Major Logic only when the students are already familiar
with philosophical abstraction and have sufficiently studied
the scientific part of the curriculum to have some experience
of deductive and inductive reasoning and some understanding
of the allusions and examples which the Logician must use.
1 Minor Logic (shortened and made easier by the plan
which we have adopted).
2 Cosmology and Psychology.
3 Major Logic.
4 Critique.
Therefore we have decided to divide the second fascicle
(The Order of Concepts, or Logic) and the fifth fascicle
(Being as being, or Metaphysics) of our manual into two
parts, which will appear separately. Thus the Minor Logic,
Major Logic and Criticism will be published in three
separate sections so as to permit each instructor to group the
matter of the course in the order most convenient for him.
This Logic may perhaps find readers outside of the schools
(as our Introduction to Philosophy has done). “ The abandon¬
ment of logical studies in France,” wrote Renouvier in
1859, “has been pushed to such a point that the theory
of judgment is studied no more than that of the syllogism,
and were it not that the study of mathematics and, in part,
the study of law, somewhat alleviates this evil, we would
find but few educated people who knew how to handle
reciprocals for example, and who were not in the habit of
sprinkling their conversation with crude paralogisms.” (1)
Since the time when this all-too-justified complaint was
1 J. Maritain, Introduction to Philosophy, Shecd and Ward, 1937.
Vlll FOREWORD

made, the number of those who understand the necessity

of a return to the study of Logic for the restoration of the
intelligence has been greatly increased. We would be happy
if this modest work could contribute its part to this benefi¬
cial return. Concerning Logic, Stuart Mill has said (2) :
“ I am persuaded that nothing in modern education tends
so much, when properly used, to form exact thinkers, who
attach a precise meaning to words and propositions and
are not imposed on by vague, loose or ambiguous terms.
The boasted influence of mathematical studies is nothing
to it, for in a mathematical process none of the real difficul¬
ties of correct ratiocination occur (mathematical proposi¬
tions, for example, are but universal affirmatives ; further¬
more the two terms are united by the sign, hence the
immediate possibility of pure and simple conversion, etc.).
For want of some such discipline many otherwise able men
are altogether incapable of disentangling the intricacies
of confused and self-contradictory thought. . . .”

II

May we be permitted two more observations. First, as

we have remarked in the foreword to the Introduction to
Philosophy, but as we may well repeat in order to avoid all
misunderstandings, this present work is intended for begin¬
ners, especially for students in the latter half of their regular
university course. For this reason it remains elementary,
and does not pretend to be complete, particularly in the
matter of documentary references and cited texts. Never¬
theless, as it must preserve the scientific character necessary
to philosophic exposition, it will form a real treatise which
consequently contains more than is required by the official
programme. But all explanations which entail some diffi¬
culty or which do nothing other than expand some point,
shall be printed inset.1

1 The Foreword to the French edition contains the following, which refers
to the baccalaureate course in France : “ Furthermore those paragraphs,
the study of which is not strictly necessary towards the baccalaureate degree,
shall be marked with an asterisk. This text may therefore be used by students
who are preparing the second part of their baccalaureate under ordinary
conditions (that is, in one year) as well as those who, by reason of exceptional
circumstances, devote two years to the study of philosophy.”
 FOREWORD IX

Secondly, there is a point upon which we had thought to

have made ourselves sufficiently clear, but which we
undoubtedly did not explain fully enough, since as well-
informed a critic as Rev. Fr. Ramirez (3) completely
mistook the true meaning of our method of procedure.
We are convinced (and in this we are in accord with Father
Ramirez himself and with the Aristotelian tradition) that,
in any treatment which respects the order of the philosophic
disciplines, the study of the nature of Philosophy, its divi¬
sion and value, should be undertaken only in Metaphysics.
For Metaphysics alone, in its role of wisdom, may judge both
itself and its proper principles, as well as the other sciences.
This is indeed the procedure we mean to take in our present
work. In our Introduction we touched upon the questions
mentioned above (and upon many others) only because, to
our mind, that work is in no way a part of the course in
philosophy itself, and consequently no question is properly
reserved to it. As is clearly indicated by its title, it precedes
and paves the way for the course, but it remains exterior
to it. We planned it as we did solely with a pedagogical
concern for beginners, and to furnish them with a general
propaedeutic account wherein certain important results of
knowledge might be put within their grasp from the point
of view of common sense, before being proved in a deeper
and more scientific manner later on. For this reason the
questions treated therein should be taken up again in their
proper place in the different sections of the Course, par¬
ticularly in Critique.

Ill

The nature of this work did not permit us to discuss at

length the different modern theories about Logic, with
all the explanations necessary to such dicussions. However,
we hope to have sufficiently treated the most important
of these theories without prejudice to the complementary
treatments to be given in Major Logic, and to have suffi¬
ciently clarified the essential principles governing these
discussions. We shall be content indeed if we have succeeded
in showing that the best way to bring new life to many
X FOREWORD

problems is to go back to the thought of the ancients in its

original sources.
We are not unaware of the imperfections that creep almost
inevitably into a general didactic work of this type. If,
despite the care with which it has been edited, certain
errors remain, we shall be grateful to those of our readers
who may be kind enough to bring them to our attention.

J. M.

NOTES TO FOREWORD
(1) Ch. Renouvier, Essais de Critique Generate, ist edition,
1859, Logique, vol. II, p. 126.
(2) Stuart Mill, Autobiography, p. 14 (Columbia Univ.
Press, 1924).
(3) Ciencia Tomista, July-August, 1922.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
FOREWORD.vi

LOGIC (THE ORDER OF CONCEPTS)

INTRODUCTION.I

MINOR LOGIC
CHAPTER I.—THE CONCEPT AND THE FIRST
OPERATION OF THE MIND
SECTION I.—SIMPLE APPREHENSION.12

SECTION 2.—THE CONCEPT.17

A. Notion of the concept . . . . . . 17
B. Extension and comprehension of concepts ... 20
C. The different kinds of concepts ..... 30
§ 1.—Incomplex and complex concepts . . . . 31
§ 2.—Concrete and abstract concepts ..... 32
§ 3.—Collective and divisive concepts ..... 35
§ 4.—Extension of the subject-concept ..... 36

SECTION 3.—THE TERM.45

A. Notion of the oral term ....... 45
B. The different kinds of terms ...... 49
§ 1.—Generalities ........ 49
§2.—The Noun and the verb . . . . . 51
§ 3.—Subject and Predicate ...... 56
§ 4.—Extension of the subject-term ..... 57
C. Properties of the term in the proposition . ■ • • 58

SECTION 4.—DEFINITION.76

SECTION 5.—DIVISION.Bo

CHAPTER II.—THE PROPOSITION AND THE

SECOND OPERATION OF THE MIND
SECTION I.—THE JUDGMENT.82

SECTION 2.—THE PROPOSITION.93

A. General notions.93
§ 1.—Discourse in general ...... 93
§ 2.—The enunciation or proposition ..... 96
XI
xii TABLE OF CONTENTS

MGt

B. The different kinds of propositions ..... 99

§ t.—Simple propositions and compound propositions . .too
§ 2.—Affirmative and negative propositions . . . .110
§ 3.—Propositions de inesse and modal propositions . . .111
§ 4.—The subject and predicate from the point of view of quantity 114
C. Opposition of propositions . . . . . .128
D. Conversion of propositions . . . . . .142

CHAPTER III.—REASONING
SECTION I.—REASONING IN GENERAL.148
A. General notions . . . . . . . .148
B. Division of reasoning . . . . . .161
C. “ Immediate inferences ” . . . . . .162

SECTION 2.—THE SYLLOGISM.169

A. The categorical syllogism . . . . . .169
§ 1.—General notions . . . . . . .169
§2.—Figures and moods . . . . . .185
§ 3.—Elucidations and discussions ..... 206
§ 4.—The expository syllogism ...... 233
B. The condidonal syllogism ...... 235
§ 1.—Hypothetical syllogisms in general .... 235
§ 2.—The conditional syllogism ...... 238
C. Division of the syllogism '...... 247
§ 1 •—Demonstrative, probable, erroneous, sophistic syllogisms . 247
§ 2.—Incomplete syllogisms ...... 249
§ 3-—Oblique syllogisms ....... 249
§ 4-—Compound syllogisms ...... 253

SECTION 3.—INDUCTION.058
A. Inductive reasoning .......
B. Division of induction ....... 278
C. Reasoning by resemblance ..... 284

APPENDIX
LOGICAL ALGEBRA.288

PEDAGOGICAL HINTS. oQ,

ALPHABETIC INDEX
295
 INTRODUCTION
(the order of concepts)

PRELIMINARIES

1. preliminary notions. Logic 1 studies the reason itself Logic is the

art which
as an instrument of knowledge, or a means of acquiring and enables us to
proceed with
possessing the true. It may be defined as : the art which order, ease,
and correct¬
directs the very act of reason, that is which enables us ness in the
act of reason
to advance with order, ease and correctness in the act of reason itself.

itself. 2
(a) Thus Logic not only proceeds in conformity with
reason, as do all the sciences, but bears upon the act of
reason itself, whence its name, the science of reason, or of
the logos (XoyiKrj i-niaT'bfJ.rj).3
(b) The reason is not another faculty than the intelligence
(the understanding, the intellect) ; but, from the point of view
of the functioning of this faculty, it is called more especially
the intelligence when it sees, grasps, or “ apprehends,”
and more specially the reason when it proceeds through dis¬
course from the apprehension of one thing known to another.
2. THE THREE OPERATIONS OF THE MIND. What act is

proper to the reason as such ?

REASONING

We reason when we think for instance :

The spiritual is incorruptible,

but the human soul is spiritual,
therefore it is incorruptible.

1 Cf. J. Maritain, An Introduction to Philosophy, p. 152, New York, Sheed and

Ward, 1934.
2 “ Ars directiva ipsius actus ratioms, per quam scilicet homo in ipso actu
rationis ordinate et faciliter et sine errore procedat ” (St. Thomas, in
Anal. Post., lib. 1, lect. 1, n° 1).
3 Logica vocatur ralionalis non solum “ ex eo quod est secundum rationem,
sed etiam ex eo quod est circa ipsum actum rationis, sicut circa propriam
materiam ” (St. Thomas, ibid.).
1
 2 LOGIC

Reasoning, Reasoning is the most complex operation of our mind ;

it is by reasoning that we go from what we know already
to what we do not yet know, that we discover, that we
demonstrate, that we make progress in knowledge. Since
Logic studies the reason as a means of acquiring knowledge,
it must consider first and foremost among the operations of
the mind, reasoning.
There are other operations of the mind which Logic
must also consider. It will consider them in relation to
reasoning, as factors in it.
an act un¬ The act of reason is one or undivided, like the act of taking
divided yet
complex. three steps towards a goal. One, two, three, we have
reached the goal : we have taken three steps, but we moved
without stopping, with an undivided movement. We
reason likewise with an undivided movement ; but we do
not reason for the mere pleasure of running, or “ discurs-
ing,” from idea to idea, but indeed to conclude, to render
evident to ourselves some truth in which we stop.
Yet the act of reason is a complex act ; it is one or undivided
but it is not simple or indivisible ; on the contrary it is com¬
posed of several distinct acts in orderly sequence, each of
which bears upon an enunciation similar to the three
enunciations in the example given above and which we
call propositions. Each of these acts taken in itself is called a
JUDGMENT.

This is another operation of the mind which is anterior

to the reasoning and is presupposed by it. To judge is to
affirm or deny ; it is to think for example,

Judging, Caution is the mother of safety,

or again,
Formal dress is a considerable nuisance.
In the first judgment we affirm of the term “ caution ”
this other term “mother of safety,” that is, we identify
these two terms saying : there exists one same thing (a
same subject) to which both the name “ caution ” and the
name “ mother of safety ” belong at the same time. In
the second judgment we deny to the term, “ formal dress,”
this other term “ considerable nuisance.”
 INTRODUCTION 3

By judging we declare ourselves to be in possession of

the truth on this or that point. A wise man is a man who
judges well.
The act of judging is one or undivided, as the act of taking
a step ; it is even, strictly speaking, a simple or indivisible a simple act
but bearing
act.1 Thus, in the example given above, the judgment on a complex
object.
does not consist in the juxtaposition of three different acts
of thought—an act of thought for “ caution,” another for
“ is ” and a third for “ mother of safety,” but indeed in a
single act of thought. It bears nevertheless upon a complex
object (a proposition constructed by the mind), and just as
a step is a movement between two terms, between a point of
departure and a point of arrival, so the act of judging is a
movement of thought, translated by the word “ is,” which
unites two different notions, expressed by the word-subject
and the word-attribute or predicate.
Each of these notions corresponds to a certain act of the
mind called conception,2perception, or

SIMPLE APPREHENSION.

This is another operation of the mind, anterior to judg¬

ment and presupposed by it.
To conceive is to form in the mind an idea in which one To conceive
or to make
sees, grasps or “ apprehends ” something. It is to think, an act of
apprehen¬
e-g-, sion about a
simple
“ man ” object,

or “ caution ”
or “ unfortunate.”

This act is evidently at the very root of all our intel¬

lectual knowledge, and that is why it is of the first import¬
ance. For by this act an object of thought is offered to the
sight or grasp of our intelligence.
This act of perception or apprehension is, however, so
imperfect that although it does indeed present to us an
object of thought discernible in a thing, it does not at the
same time present to us the other objects of thought which

1 See No. 37.

2 The word conception ordinarily designates only the formation of the idea (in
which sense we are using it here) although it may also designate the formation
of the proposition on which the judgment bears.
 LOGIC
4

are united to this one in the thing as it exists (its existence

being either actual or possible). Consequently our mind,
remaining in a state of suspense, has nothing as yet to
affirm or deny. It is clear for example that if we think :

“ man ”
“ snow ”
“ delicate people ”

we have but the beginning of a truth in our mind, our mind

makes as yet no declaration of conformity with the real ;
this declaration is not made, nor is there a completed truth
in our mind, unless we think for example (in a judgment) :

“ man is mortal ”
or “ snow is white ”
or “ delicate people are unfortunate ”
or the like.
In the same way we do not advance by simply lifting our
foot off the ground, we advance only if we take a step.
We may say then that in making an act of simple appre¬
hension our mind merely grasps a thing without affirming or
denying anything about it.
This act is not only one or undivided, but also simple or
indivisible : the act of thinking “ man ” or “ snow ” is
a simple act obviously an act which admits of no parts. Furthermore 1
simp"!3 it bears upon an object which is either indivisible itself (as
object' an object of thought, e.g., “ man ”) or at least is appre¬
hended in the same way as indivisible objects, that is, without
involving any construction erected by the mind. Hence it is
called an act of simple apprehension.
The act of conception or simple apprehension is thus a
primary operation which presupposes no other intellectual
operation. Undoubtedly it does not constitute our first
act of knowledge (for it presupposes the operations of the
senses), but it constitutes our first intellectual operation,
it is the first operation of the mind.
The three operations of the human mind are simple apprehension,
judgment and reasoning.
*3. THE OPERATIONS OF THE MIND AND ITS PRODUCTS.

1 See below No. 7.

 INTRODUCTION
5

The study of the nature of the operations of the mind and

of their inmost mechanism belongs to Psychology. But we
may note here the distinction between

The operation itself or act of the mind, and the product

which the mind produces thereby within itself.1

The act of judging, for example, is an operation of the

mind involving the production or construction in the mind
of a certain group of concepts, which we call an enunciation
or proposition. There is as much difference between the
action of assembling concepts and judging, and the con¬
structed group itself, as there is between the action of build¬
ing a house and the house when built.
The thought-proposition (the group of concepts) is
distinguished in turn from the verbal proposition which
explains it in words and is its oral sign. There is as much
difference between the one and the other as between the
house itself and some representation of it.

By verbal propositions we understand those that are

actually spoken—groups of words spoken aloud—as well
as those which are spoken only in the mind—groups of
words formed in the imagination.
When we think, for example, “ man is mortal,” we affirm
that which is presented to us by the idea of mortal, of that
which is presented to us by the idea of man. But at the
same time in which we form this proposition in the mind,
we imagine the verbal proposition by which it is expressed
(and sometimes we really form its phonetic equivalents
with our lips).
The thought-proposition (the group of concepts)
evidently differs as much from the mentally spoken
proposition (the group of auditory or muscular images of
articulate sounds), as it does from the actually spoken
proposition.
To make more precise the meaning of the terms we shall
1 “ Sicut in actibus exterioribus est considerare operationem, et operatum,
puta aedificationem et aedificatum; ita in operibus rationis est considerare
ipsum actum rationis, qui est intelligere et ratiocinari, et aliquid per hujusmodi
actum constitutum : quod quidem in speculativa ratione primo quidem est
definitio, secundo enuntiatio, tertio veto syllogismus, vet argumentatio ” (St. Thomas,
Sum. Theol., I—II, q. 90, a. 1, ad 2).
 6 LOGIC

use we may construct the following table of the operations

of the mind :

THE OPERATIONS OF THE MIND AND ITS PRODUCTS

THE OPERATION THE PRODUCT THE SIGN

(immaterial) (oral and material)
The mental I. Determined by a like¬
concept, ness of the object re¬
product of
the intelli¬
ceived through the
gence. senses—by means of
abstraction — the
mind forms or
“ says ” within itself an idea (or mental
concept) in which
First opera¬ it sees, grasps or ap¬
tion of the prehends (simple ap¬
mind.
prehension) acertain
The objec¬ essence or object of a
tive concept,
or object of a
concept (which logi¬
concept. cians also call an
OBJECTIVE CONCEPT) and it designates this
Oral sign of idea by a word (term)
the concept.
which is itself signifi-
able by a graphic sign
(a written word) : man.
Having thus seen or
apprehended, the
First pro¬ mind may now pro¬
duct of the
reason.1 duce within itself. a complex concept re¬
lating in detail what it
has seen. This is the
DEFINITION of the
Its oral sign. thing .... of which the oral sign
is a verbal definition
(a group of words) :
rational animal.
The second II. The mind constructs
operation of (COMPOSITION AND
the mind.
division) . a group of two con¬
cepts (Subject and Pre¬
dicate) whose
agreement or dis¬
agreement it appre¬
hends and which it
affirms or denies one
of the other by a
simple act (a judg¬
Second pro¬ ment) bearing upon . this group of concepts
duct of the
reason. or This
proposition.
has ...... for its oral sign a
spoken proposition (a
Its oral sign.
group of words) : man
is a rational animal.
1 “ First ” should be understood, here, in the logical order and not in the
chronological order (see below No. 29a.) We say that the definition is the
first product of the reason because it is the first product of the intellect uniting
concepts. 5
 INTRODUCTION
7
THE OPERATION THE PRODUCT THE SIGN
III. The mind sees or ap¬ Third opera¬
prehends . a grouping of proposi¬ tion of the
mind.
tions (antecedent)
as “ inferring ” or
rendering necessarily
true . . . . , another proposition
[consequent)
which it “ concludes”
from the preceding
propositions. This is
the reasoning which
constructs a group of proposi¬
tions called ARGUMEN¬
TATION, whose . oral sign is the verbal Its oral sign.
ARGUMENTATION (group
of spoken propositions):
man is a rational animal ;
but every philosopher is a
man; therefore every
philosopher is a rational
animal.

In the first column of the table we have written that

which concerns the acts or operations of the mind, in the second
that which concerns the products that are formed in the mind,
and in the third the oral and material signs of these mental
products. Everyday language ordinarily confuses these
three orders of things, because in many cases what is said
of the product may also be said of the operation, and
because it is natural for man to call things which are sig¬
nified by the same name by their sign only, for this is more
familiar to him. Nevertheless to take examples, a judgment
is a vital act, a (thought) proposition is an immaterial
organism composed of several concepts, a verbal proposi¬
tion is an inert composite of material parts (words) in
juxtaposition in time (oral proposition) or in space (written
proposition). These distinctions are highly important if
Logic is to be rightly understood.

(a) As we shall see later on, Leibnitz and certain logicians

in his tradition tend to neglect the operation for the product,
and the immaterial product of the mind for it's material sign.
(.b) On the other hand, in its critique of the intellect,
the Anti-Intellectualist school (James, Bergson, Le Roy)
often confuse the operations and products of the intel¬
ligence with the material signs by which they are expressed.
(c) No one has anywhere made clearer the distinction
 8 LOGIC

between the thought and the material signs which express

it than Aristotle. The object of his Logic is precisely the
immaterial products of the mind, and not the spoken or
written words, which he treats only in so far as they are
the external signs of these products. Cf. Ammonius, in
Periherm., f. 19a and 20a : toc re expcovovixeva. avfipoXa. etvca
TifleTOU rwv voovfievcov ra ypapojieva t£>v ixpiovoop-eviov.

To avoid confusion we shall restrict the usual meaning

of the word “judgment ” here, and use it only to designate
the operation of the mind which consists in giving assent ;
we shall use the word proposition to signify the product
formed in the mind and to which this assent is given. This
restriction will not obtain for the word reasoning, however,
which we shall use in its ordinary sense, now to designate
only the operation of the mind, now to designate its product
or the argumentation, now to designate both at the same
time. In each case the sense will be obvious from the
context.
4. the division of logic. Since Logic considers the
reasoning primarily, it is in relation to the reasoning that
it should be divided. But are there not in reasoning, as
in every structure or work of art, two things to be con¬
sidered ? In a house, for instance, one must distinguish
between the materials and the disposition given them by
the architect ; if this disposition is bad the house will not
stand because it is badly constructed. If the materials are
bad (even though the disposition be good) the house will
not stand, because it is built of bad material. In the same
way, in reasoning we must distinguish between :
1. the ideal materials with which we reason, which are
called
The matter the matter of the reasoning
and form of
reasoning.
and 2. the disposition according to which these materials
are assembled in the mind in order that the conclusion
obtain, this is called

the form of the reasoning.

Reasoning is correct or incorrect in virtue of its form, and it

 INTRODUCTION

attains to the true or the false in virtue of its matter ; thus the
reasoning—
Man can do no evil, (I)
but this criminal is a man, (II)
therefore this criminal can do no evil (III)

is correct, the form is valid, and the conclusion follows—but

nevertheless it concludes to the false because the first
proposition is untrue.
Since Logic is the art which enables us to proceed with
ease, order and correctness in the act of reason itself, it
must treat of both the form and the matter of our reasonings.
Hence its division into Minor or formal Logic (.Logica minor)
and Major or material Logic (.Logica major).
Minor Logic studies the formal conditions of knowledge Minor Logic.
and analyses or, as we say, “ resolves ” the reasoning into the
principles upon which it depends from the point of view
of its form or disposition 1; it sets forth the rules which
must be observed if the reasoning is to be correct or well
constructed, and the conclusion valid in relation to the dis¬
position of materials. The mind that does not conform to
these formal laws of thought is inconsistent and, as the
Port-Royal Logic says, an inconsistent mind “ has no talons ”
with which to hold fast to the truth.
Major Logic studies the material conditions of knowledge, Major Logic.

and analyses or “ resolves ” the reasoning into the principles

on which it depends as to its matter or content 2; it explains
what conditions the materials of reasoning must satisfy if
we would have a conclusion that is firm on every side, not
only on the side of form but also on the side of matter ;
in other words, a true and certain conclusion.3
1 This analysis or “ resolution ” of the reasoning into its formal principles
is the object of Aristotle’s Prior Analytics. For this reason the scholastics called
it resolutio prioristica.
* This analysis or “ resolution ” of the reasoning into its material prin¬
ciples is the object of Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. For this reason the scholastics
called it resolutio posterioristica.
3 In order to obviate possible confusion it would be well to specify here
that when we say that Minor Logic resolves reasoning into its formal principles
(in which case the principles and laws in question are those which govern the
jorm or disposition of the intelligible material used in reasoning) we are using
the word formal in another sense than when we say that philosophy is resolved
formally into the first principles of reason, and materially into sense experience
(cf. J. Maritain, Introd. to Phil., p. 140). In the latter case we mean that the
IO LOGIC

In the Prior Analytics, Aristotle treats of reasoning in

its most general aspect, and rises therefrom to the con¬
sideration of the most formal aspect of discursive activity.
This part of Logic, which studies what reasoning is, and
how it must proceed whatever its content or the use which
the mind makes of it (investigation or demonstration),
should therefore be called formal Logic even at the risk of
ambiguity. For, since the time of Kant and Hamilton,
many modern authors have used the term formal Logic in
a totally different sense.1 In the Posterior Analytics, Aristotle
treats of the different kinds of reasoning due to the diversity
of objects or “ matters ” upon which discourse may bear.
This part of Logic, being concerned with the different
kinds of reasoning, in virtue of their content, should then be
called material Logic. Formal Logic is, in truth, more
abstract and therefore more difficult than material Logic.
However, since formal Logic is presupposed by material
Logic, it is advisable to begin our study with it, at the
price of being content with a relatively summary treat¬
ment (this is what the scholastics called the Summulae). In
this way, for pedagogical reasons, we are led to make of
formal Logic a “ lesser Logic ” and to reserve for the
second part of the treatise the more difficult questions
concerning the foundations of Logic. Material Logic thus
becomes “ greater Logic P 2 We have seen fit to conform to
this procedure because of its great pedagogical advantages.
Further, we have found it advisable to emphasize in

first principles that are self-evident are those which constitute philosophy
formally or in its essence and give it its proper light, while sense experience
furnishes the materials from which intellectual knowledge actually comes
materials on which philosophy depends.
So, although the first prinfiiples of reason may come into the consideration
of Major or Material Logic, which treats of the content of our reasonings and
not of their “ form ” or disposition alone, these first principles of reason arc
none the less, in another function, the formal principles of intellectual know¬
ledge and philosophy, just as the soul is the form which gives life to the body.
1 This point and the problems concerning the nature of Logic will be
considered in Major Logic.
2 Some modern treatises prefer the name applied Logic, but this runs the risk
of ambiguity and might lead one to think that this part of Logic does nothing
but apply the truths established by formal Logic, whereas it is in reality a
part of Logic which treats of an aspect of things that formal Logic does not
consider. The term applied Logic belongs rather to what the Ancients called
Logica utens. The distinction between Logica docens (pure Logic) and Logica
utens (applied Logic) will be studied in Major Logic.
 INTRODUCTION II

the first two operations of the mind—which Logic always

considers in sequence to the third—the division between
formal and material analysis, which originally concerned
the reasoning alone.

Minor and Major Logic are subdivided naturally Subdivisions

of Major and
according to the three operations of the mind ; the study Minor Logic.

of the third operation which is the foremost object of Logic

necessarily presupposes the study of the first two.
In addition to this, Major Logic treats especially of Defini¬
tion, Division, and Argumentation as instruments of know¬
ledge. It concludes fittingly with the study of the object
and nature of Logic itself, a question which actually belongs
to the domain proper to Critique and which Logic borrows
from this science.

THE DIVISION OF LOGIC

' i. The Concept . . . 1 st operation of considered in

MINOR LOGIC the mind relation to the
or Logic^ 2. The Proposition . . 2nd operation rules for the
of correct construction of
reasoning. the reasoning.
3. The Reasoning . . 3rd operation analysed from
the point of
view of its for-
mal principles.
f 1. The Universal, ist opera-'' considered
tion of the mind from the
point of view
2. The Judgment. 2nd opera- 'of the matter
1
tion of the mind of the reason¬
Prolegomena '
ing.
3. The Three Instruments of
knowledge (Definition, Division,
Argumentation.)
MAJOR LOGIC > 1. False Demon-
or Logic of stration
true Reason-< (Sophism)
ing. 2. Imperfect
Demonstration 3rd opera- analysed from
II
tion the point of
The Logic of
(The Prob¬ > view of its
Demonstra¬
able) material
tion
3. Demonstration principles.
properly so-
called (The
Necessarily
true).
 CHAPTER I

THE CONCEPT AND THE FIRST OPERATION OF THE MIND

SECTION i. SIMPLE APPREHENSION

By simple 5. definition. What is simple apprehension ? As we

apprehen¬
sion we have seen above 1 it is
perceive
something The act by which the intelligence grasps or perceives some¬
without
affirming or thing without affirming or denying anything about it.2
denying
anything
about it. We make an act of simple apprehension when we think,
for example, “ man,” “ rational animal,” “ white,” “ intel¬
ligent,” etc.
A nature or 6. The material object of simple apprehension is the thing
essence.
apprehended by thought, whatever it may be. The formal
object of simple apprehension,3 that which it attains first and
directly, per se primo, is this same thing, inasmuch as it comes
directly into intellectual knowledge or, in other words, it is that
part of the thing which the intelligence seizes immediately
for its object. Since the essence or nature of a thing is, by
definition,4 that part of it which presents itself first to the
intelligence {id quod per se primo intelligitur in aliqua re) we
may say that
THE FORMAL OBJECT

of simple apprehension is always

SOME ESSENCE, NATURE, OR “ QUIDDITY.”

{a) Here we may take the words “ essence,” “ nature,”

and “ quiddity ” in their broadest sense 6 as meaning
what something is (some object which I attain in pronounc¬
ing a name), or again what this idea or this name sets
before me. I grasp a certain essence, in this sense, when-
1 See pp. 4, 5.
2 “ Operatio, qua intellectus aliquam quidditatem intelligit, quin quid-
quam de ea affirmet vel neget.”
3 See-J. Mari tain. Introduction to Philosophy, pp. 105-106.
4 Seep. 191, ibid.
6 See p. 1 g 1, ibid.
tt
 THE CONCEPT
13

ever I think—e.g., “living body,” “animal,” “French,”

“ Peter.” 1 Thus everything grasped by means of simple
apprehension is, as such, one essence.
' lb) But these words, “ essence,” “ nature,” and “ quid¬
dity ” are understood par excellence in the narrowest and
proper sense of “ essence,” 2 as meaning what a certain
thing is primarily and necessarily for the intelligence, or again
what this thing is primarily and necessarily as the first principle
of intelligibility. In this sense I grasp the complete essence
of Peter (confusedly or distinctly) in thinking “ man,” or
“ rational animal.” When I think “ living body ” or
“ animal ” I grasp this essence in only a part of its deter¬
minations, and when I think “ French ” or “ Peter ” I
grasp (in a confused manner) this essence in all its deter¬
minations but with certain notes proceeding from the
individual matter.
Thus simple apprehension is ordained par excellence to
the perception of the essences of things as the formal object
quod (this perception may be either distinct or confused,
clear or obscure), and to the placing of this intelligible
foundation before the mind. It is by reason of the essences

1 The same is true if I think “ white ” (a concrete quality), whiteness (an

abstract quality), “paternity” or “ sonship ” (a relation), etc., etc. The
only exceptions are beings of reason, which, since they are creations of the mind
and not something capable of existing in reality, may only be improperly called
essences or quiddities.
2 See J. Maritain, Introduction to Philosophy, pp. 197-201. Certain modern
authors have misunderstood this term “ the apprehension of essences ” to
mean that, by the power of abstraction, the mind may at once perceive the
inmost constitution of a thing. The scholastics never held any such doctrine.
For them, abstraction transports us from the sensible to the intelligible plane,
and introduces us into the order of essences and their necessary laws. But the
intelligible objects, the “ natures ” or “ essences ” perceived in simple appre¬
hension, far from putting us in possession of the innermost constitution of
things, are, at first, but the simplest and most common intelligible aspects,
which are grasped in the things themselves (first of all and at the very outset,
“being,” as an object of thought). Thus the concept of “fire” which I
derive from sense experience does not unfold to me the innermost nature and
mysteries of “ ignition ” ; at first it is simply a concept of something with a
determinate nature (as yet unknown to me) which appears under certain sensible
aspects. Only later do I penetrate this nature somewhat and know it as the
combination of a body in its gaseous state with the oxygen of the air.
Undoubtedly it was this very thing that the concept of fire revealed to me, but
in a hidden way.
And even if we do succeed in attaining an explicit knowledge of the essences
or the inmost constitution of some few things, nevertheless, in a great many
cases (especially in the inductive sciences) we have to be content with imperfect
knowledge through external signs.
 T4 LOGIC

of things considered as the principal object to be known,

that simple apprehension grasps whatever it grasps.
In short, it is always under this or that intelligible aspect
(under this or that “ characteristic,” “ determination,” or
“ formality ”) that simple apprehension attains natures
and things. Thus in grasping one and the same nature,
Peter’s, for example, our mind may grasp it as “ man,”
“ animal,” “ rational animal,” or as “ every man,” “ this
man,” etc. There are as many distinct objects as there are
particular acts of simple apprehension.
When the 7. complex and incomplex objects. Let us now con¬
object of
simple sider the objects of simple apprehension as they are in
apprehen¬
sion is one themselves. To do this must we not distinguish between two
essence
(“ man or kinds of objects of thought ?
rational
animal ”) 1— the objects of thought which are in themselves
it is in¬
complex. simple and indivisible, as the examples given above (“ man,”
“ rational animal,” “ whiteness,” etc.) ; these are indivi¬
sible because each one is an essence ; to add or subtract
anything from its intrinsic constituents would be to destroy
it, to set something else, another essence, before the mind.
When it is
several
2— certain objects of thought which are in themselves
essences
combined, it
complex and divisible, e.g., “ a man in sumptuous apparel,”
is complex. “ the long-beaked heron helved with a slender neck,”
“ an evil spreading terror in its wake,” each of these con¬
tains several essences, or objects of the intelligence. In the
first case the object of simple apprehension is, in itself,

INCOMPLEX

In the second it is, in itself,

COMPLEX.

In this division we are considering the objects of simple

apprehension as they are in themselves, as objects of the
intelligence. In this case they are incomplex or complex
in themselves (or, as to the thing, re, the ancients used
to say).1 If, on the contrary, we consider them as to the
manner in which they are attained, or conceived, in such and such
1 This is the only meaning that is ascribed to the word “ complex ” (com-
plexe re) in the language of St. Thomas. He uses it to designate an accidental
compound or one by accident. “ Ostensum est in VII Aletaph. says St. Thomas,
quod complexa non definiuntur” (In Anal. Post. 1, lect. 2, n. 3.)—Gf. Zigliara’s
commentary (Leonine edition, Vol. I, p. 142), complexa non defmimtwr, etc.
 THE CONCEPT 15

a particular intellectual act, we would say that they were incomplex

or complex as to the manner of conception (as to the
sign, voce), depending upon whether they present them¬
selves explicitly under one, or several, intelligible aspects ;
in the first case they are expressed by a single term,1 in
the second, by several. In this sense, “ man ” is an
incomplex object of thought, “ rational animal,” a
complex object of thought.
In order, therefore, to divide the objects of thought
from both of these points of view at the same time (con¬
sidering them both in themselves and as to the manner in
which they are conceived), we would have to divide them as :
incomplex in themselves and as to the manner in which they
are conceived (incomplex re et voce), e.g., “man” is one
essence presented to the mind by means of a single intel¬
lectual grasp.
incomplex in themselves and complex as to the manner in
which they are conceived (incomplex re non voce), e.g., “ rational
animal,” a single essence presented to the mind by means
of two intellectual grasps.
complex in themselves and incomplex as to the manner in
which they are conceived (complex re non voce), e.g., “philoso¬
pher,” two essences (philosophy and the man possessing
the science) presented to the mind by means of one intel¬
lectual grasp.
complex in themselves and as to the manner in which they are
conceived (complex re et voce), e.g., “ a man skilled in philoso¬
phy” : several essences presented to the mind by means
of several intellectual grasps.
Thus when we think, “ the long-beaked heron helved with
a slender neck,” or “ an evil spreading terror in its wake,
evil that heaven in its wrath invented to punish earthly
sins,” or any such series of ideas (the length does not matter)
that do not form a completed logical whole, we are making
an act of simple apprehension, just as when We think
“ man ” or “ triangle.” Simple apprehension may have a
complex object.
Nevertheless, it remains simple apprehension.
1 By a single “ significative ” or “ categorematic ” term
(see below, No.
22b). For example in “all man” the “all” is not a “categorematic” term,
for it does nothing but determine the term “ man,”
 l6 LOGIC

1. because it is primarily ordained to the perception of

essences or quiddities which are indivisible in the sense
explained above (wherefore the ancients called the first
operation of the mind indivisibilium intelligentia) and
2. because it grasps groups of essences, or objects which
,x
are in themselves complex, in the same way that it grasps
indivisible objects or isolated essences ; that is, it grasps them
without producing any complete structure in the mind.
In the In other words, in the expression “ simple apprehension,”
expression
“ simple the word simple is understood as being contrasted with the
apprehen¬
sion ” constructive activity manifested in the other operations of the
“ simple "
is under¬ mind by which we form within ourselves lasting structures,
stood as
being as it were, and works of art, so that we may reach the truth.
contrasted
with the All knowledge that does not arise from this constructive
constructive
activity function of the mind, or that does not constitute a con¬
proper to
the second structed whole, or a finished structure properly so-called,
and third
operations but constitutes only a part of such a whole, arises from
of the
mind. simple apprehension. This is the case in definitions such as
“ rational animal,” or in complex terms such as “ the man
who is approaching.” These definitions and complex terms
are to a complete product of the mind (e.g., “ man is a
rational animal,” or “ I do not fear the man who is approach¬
ing ”) as a simple member, an arm or leg (a compound in
itself, but only as a part, not as a whole), is to the organism.1 2
How then does a complete mental structure, or whole,
differ from a complex part ? Since the constructive activity
of the mind is ordained to the attainment of truth, that is
to putting thought into conformity with what exists (actually
or “ possibly ”) the constructions in question are not
complete and finished until they signify the (actual or
possible) existence of a subject with such and such predicates—
that is until they constitute enunciations or propositions con¬
cerning which an act of assent or dissent may be made.

1 “y ruv aSiaiptruv v6yms,” Aristotle, De An., Ill, 6, 430 a, 26 (St. Thomas,

lect. 11). Cf. Perilierm., lib. I, St. Thomas, lect. 3, n. 3 : “ Oportet intelligere,
quod una duarum operationum intellectus est indivisibilium intelligentia, in
quantum scilicet intellectus intelligit absolute cujusque rei quiddilatem sive
essentiam per seipsam, puta quid est homo, vel quid album, vel quid hujusmodi.
Alia vero operatio intellectus est, secundum quod hujusmodi simplicia concepta
simul componit et dividit.” Cf. also Metaph., lib. IX, St. Thomas, lect. 11.
2 Cf.John of St. Thomas, Curs Phil., t. Ill, p, 314 (Phil. Nat., Ill P., q. XI,
a. 3)-
 THE CONCEPT 17

SECTION 2. THE CONCEPT

A. NOTION OF THE CONCEPT

8. definition. As we shall see later in Psychology the

intellectual act of perceiving taken in itself and inasmuch as
it is a purely “ immanent ” action (that is, inasmuch as it
is simply the faculty’s qualitative completion) should be
distinguished from the action of forming an idea, which is
an action productive of a term or interior fruit. Nevertheless,
in reality these two actions are but one, for the immanent
act of intellection is in itself virtually productive,1 and we
may apprehend a thing only on the condition that we form
an idea of this thing in ourselves : on condition that we
conceive the thing within ourselves. A concept (or idea) is,
therefore,
that which the mind produces or expresses within itself—
and
in which it grasps or apprehends a thing.
The concept or mental word answers to : 1. a necessity
of human intellectual knowledge ; for to be perceived the
intelligible object must be brought in the concept to the
ultimate degree of immateriality required by intellection
in act. 2. the fecundity, proper to the intellect, which seeks
naturally to manifest or to “ tell itself” what it has just
perceived. (Gf. John of St. Thomas, Logica, q. 22, a. 2.)
This is a concept, in the ordinary sense of the word, an
“ image ” 2 or a spiritual likeness of a thing within us, and
it is a pure means,
THAT IN WHICH

we attain the thing or object, “ id in quo intelligimus rem.” A mental or

“ formal ”
It may also be called an idea, notion, or mental word,3 and more concept is
that in
precisely a mental concept, or “ formal ” concept. which we
attain the
thing.
1 This thesis is proper to the Thomistic school, upheld on the one hand
against Suarez, who distinguishes too little, and on the other against Scotus,
who distinguishes too much, between the act of knowing as such and the pro¬
duction of the word. Gf. Gajetan, in Sum. Theol., I, 27, 1 ! 34? t ? 79? y*
Ferrariensis, in II Cont. Gent., c. 9 find 82 ; John of St. Thomas, Curs Phil.,
de Anima, q. xl, a. 1. Curs. Theol., t. IV, disp. XII, a. 5 and 6.
2 In the broad sense of the word. See J. Mari tain, fIntrod. to Philosophy, «
pp.154-157.
3 The concept is called an idea from “ 6i5co,” to see, because the object is
seen by it and in it ; notion from “ nosco, to know, because the object is known
 t8 LOGIC

The formal 9. THE MENTAL CONCEPT and the OBJECTIVE CONCEPT.1

object ot a
concept is The mental concept makes us know or grasp something ;
also called
an “ ob¬ it has a particular object which is the very object of simple
jective
concept." apprehension : an essence, nature, or quiddity, presented
under some intelligible aspect or “ formality.” This formal
object of the concept may be called simply the object of a
concept, or the
OBJECTIVE CONCEPT

The objec¬ because it is what we conceive of the object presented to the

tive concept
is that which mind by the mental concept. But it is essential to distinguish
we know by
means of the between these two accepted meanings of the word concept,2 and to
mental
concept. remember that the “ objective concept ” is not that by which or in
which we know but, on the contrary, it is
THAT WHICH

we know, that to which we immediately attain through the intel¬

ligence (id quod per se primo intelligitur) the thing itself,
inasmuch as it comes immediately into intellectual knowledge, or
the object known, inasmuch as it is an object.3

by it and in it; and a mental word (verbum mentis) because the mind utters it
within itself.
The concept is also called a representation because it is a likeness of the object
by which it (the object) is made present to the mind, an intention (intentio)
because it is that by which the mind tends toward the object, and finally a
species, taken in the sense of a “ representation ” or “ image ” (in accord with
the original meaning of species, cf. aspect, aspicere, specio, speculum, etc., Greek,
crKemw). The concept is called “ species expressa ” (an expressed representation)
as opposed to the “ species impressa ” (the representative impression) which
determines the intelligence to the production of the concept. See J. Maritain,
Introd. to Philos., p. 178. St. Thomas calls this representative impression the
species or forma intelligibilis, and calls the concept verbum mentis, conccptus or
intentio.
In the strict scholastic vocabulary, the word “idea” is reserved for the
concept which the artist imitates in his works, the creative idea.
1 The distinction between the objective concept and the mental concept is
being emphasized here in order to anticipate any confusion, for this distinc¬
tion plays an essential role in Critique. No sane logic can be constructed with¬
out presupposing a certain metaphysic of knowledge which is, moreover, the
metaphysic of common sense ; indeed it could not be otherwise. Inversely,
all the errors or deviations which we will have occasion to comment upon in
Logic ultimately proceed from some avowed or unavowed metaphysical error.
2 The word “intentio” also has these two different meanings : “ intentio
formalis ” and “ intentio objectiva.”
3 Although an objective concept is something other than the mental concept,
yet in many cases what may be said of one may also be said of the other.
Thus when we “ compose ” and “ divide ” we compose and divide both objec¬
tive and mental concepts simultaneously and in one act.
It may be said of the objective concept as of the mental concept—but in an
entirely different sense—that the thing is seized by it.
 THE CONCEPT
T9

The mental concept is expressly known {in actu signato) 1

only by the intelligence reflecting upon itself; it is the
first to be considered by the psychologist in his study of
concepts. The logician, on the contrary, treats of objective
concepts first, although mental concepts come simul¬
taneously into his consideration : for example, when we
speak, in Logic, of the agreement or disagreement of two
concepts, or of their “ composition ” and “ division,” and
so forth, our primary concern is with objective concepts,
with the object of thought which the mind sets before itself
and which it skilfully manipulates, compares, and disposes,
so that it may come to the truth.
In order to understand the notion “ objective concept ”
as well as the notion “ simple apprehension,” we must
note that since our ideas are the result of abstraction,2 and
are not impressed directly upon us by things, the object
which we lay hold of in them is always presented as abstracted
from actual existence. Even if this object does actually
exist in reality (a fact revealed to us only through sense
perception or the reasonings founded on it), yet, inasmuch as
it is the object of a concept, it is not presented as an actually
existing being, but only as a. possible being, as a being that can
exist (either in reality as a thing, or simply in the mind as
an object of thought). Thus—

Since the formal object (the objective concept) is that which is immediately
attained (per se primo), the material object is attained mediately, and “ by ”
the formal object. In this sense we may say that we grasp a thing “ by ” the
objective concept (by that in the thing which comes first and directly into
intellectual vision).
We lay hold of a thing “ with ” our mental concepts just as we lay hold of an
animal with our hands or see a monument with our eyes. We seize it by such
and such an objective concept as we seize an animal by the paws or the ears, or
as we see a monument by the facade or the apse.
By playing in the same way upon the word “ to present ” we may say that
both the mental concept and the objective concept “ presents ” the thing to
knowledge ; the mental concept being something of ourselves by which we
know the object, and the objective concept being something of the object by
which it is known to us.
It is also to be remarked that the objective concept being the thing as it is
known, conceived, or presented to the intelligence, may have a mode or state of being
(state of universality) given it by the mind itself, and which the thing does not
have in its extra-mental (individual) existence. Cf. J. Maritain, Introd.
pp. i <50-161.
1 Ibid., p. 255.
2 Ibid., pp. 170-172.
20 LOGIC

Blindness
Nothingness
(I) Affirmation
The species, man
„ An irrational number (a surd)

t A geometric point
(II) j A circumference
(An even number

(A better world than this one

(III) 1
A tree with phosphorescent fruit
(A tower ten thousand metres high

are objects of a concept of “ objective concepts ” 1 just as

much as
'Man
An oak
(IV)
Substance
v This colour, etc.

From the point of view of simple apprehension all of

these concepts abstract equally from actual existence.
(a) To be classified correctly the preceding examples
would have to be distributed as shown in table on p. 21.
(,b) The concept is also called a “ mental term ” because
the resolution or analysis of the proposition terminates in it.
From the strictly logical point of view the expression
“ mental term ” should really be preferred to all others,
for Logic considers the reasoning primarily, and there¬
fore sees propositions as the elements into which the
reasoning is resolved, and concepts as the elements into
which propositions are resolved.

B. EXTENSION AND COMPREHENSION OF CONCEPTS

io. definition. Let us examine the concept “ man.”

We can discern in this concept, a certain number of charac¬
teristics and intelligible aspects which, when united, dis-

1 All these objective concepts are properly so-called essences presented to

the mind, except beings of reason (Blindness, Nonentity, etc.) which may only
be improperly so-called essences or quiddities. The question of beings of
reason will be fully treated in Major Logic.
 THE CONCEPT 21

REAL BEING AND BEING OF REASON, ACTUAL AND POSSIBLE BEING

Being of reason Negation or privation . “ blindness.

(or being that nothingness ”
cannot exist ex¬ Logical being . . “ affirmation,
cept in the^ the species - (I)
mind). man ”
Mathematical being . “ An irrational
\ number 1 ’
/De jure : “ A geo¬ The mind
(II)
metric point” expressly
.Merely possible considers
(considered in the thing
possible existence under con¬
as opposed to -< ditions in
actual existence) which it
cannot ac-
t u a 1 1 y
{ exist.
\ 1De facto: “ A bet- (HI) I The mind
ter world ” does not
real being (or actual (or ex¬ expressly
being that can isting in actual “ man ” \ consider
exist in reality). as well as in “ substance ” (IV) the thing
possible exist- “ oak ” >■ under con¬
'ence). ditions in
which it
cannot ac-
t u a 1 1 y
exist.

tinguish it from all others ; e.g., substance, living body, sentient,

rational. In the same way, in the concept “ animal ” we
can discern the intelligible elements, substance, living body,
sentient. Intelligible aspects or elements, which necessarily
constitute an (objective) concept, and are discernible in it The com¬
prehension
of a concept
by the mind, are called the notes of the concept. is measured
by the sum
The COMPREHENSION of its notes.

of a concept is its breadth in relation to its characteristic

notes.
The EXTENSION

Its exten¬
of a- concept is its breadth in relation to the individuals sion is
measured
(or more generally to the objects of thought) in which it is by the sum
realized, and which it groups in its unity. Thus the concept of objects to
which it
“ Aryan ” extends to all Indo-Europeans, the concept “ man ” applies.

to all individuals with a rational soul, the concept “ animal

 22 LOGIC

to all sentient beings. The concept “ square ” has less

extension than the concept “ quadrilateral,” which in turn
has less extension than the concept “ polygon.”
The consideration of the extension and comprehension
of concepts plays an important role in the theory of reasoning.
Some modern logicians, particularly English logicians,
use the word denotation as synonymous with extension, and
the word connotation (or intension) as synonymous with
comprehension.1
The greater 11. general rule. Since the comprehension of the concept
the compre¬
hension of “ animal ” is smaller than that of the concept “ man ” (for
a concept
the less its the concept “ animal ” lacks the “ rational ” note and the
extension
and con¬ properties derived from it), this first concept is applicable to
versely.
individuals (irrational animals) to which the concept man
cannot be applied, therefore its extension is greater than that
of the concept “ man ” (there are more animals than men).
Likewise the concept “ polygon ” has greater extension
than the concept “ quadrilateral ” but less comprehension.
Generally speaking
the extension and comprehension of concepts are in inverse
ratio to each other.
The 12. THE EXTENSION AND COMPREHENSION OF CONCEPTS IS
extension
of a TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN RELATION TO UNIVERSAL ESSENCES.
concept is
merely a It is important that the notion of extension and com¬
property
that pre¬ prehension be firmly established from the very beginning,
supposes
the com¬ for any taint of nominalism 2 will prevent it from being
prehension
or sum of rightly understood. In nominalism the concept has no
the con¬
stitutive reality other than that of the individuals which it represents.
notes of the
essence
presented to 1 It may be said, as Goblot puts it (Log., Chap. Ill), that the extension of
the mind.
a concept is measured by the number of possible propositions of which it is
the predicate (Peter is a man, Paul is a man, etc.) and its comprehension by the
number of possible propositions of which it is the subject (man is a substance,
man is living, man is rational . . .). But this is only a sign following from the
definitions of the extension and comp/ehension of concepts—it could never be
said to constitute the definition itself.
Moreover, it holds good only on the supposition that the propositions in
question are in necessary matter (in other words, that the attribution takes place
per se, not per accidens). If I say “ the man weighs 150 pounds ’’'(that is, this
man weighs 150 pounds) and “ some man is here,” the concepts “ weighing
150 pounds ” and “ here ” are not a part of the comprehension of the concept
“ man,” nor is the concept “ man ” a part of the extension of the concepts
“here” or “weighing 150 pounds.” Goblot’s innovation really amounts to
putting the cart before the horse.
a Sec J. Maritain, Introd., pp. 159-162.
 THE CONCEPT
23

Its essential and original character as a concept is accord¬

ingly derived from its extension, that is from the extent of
its universality, or its applicability to a greater or lesser
group of individuals. However, if it is true that a concept
presents an essence, nature, or quiddity immediately to the
mind, and that this essence is something real,1 then it
must be said that the concept as such is essentially and
originally characterized by its comprehension, that is to say
by the sum of the constitutive notes of the nature that it
presents to the mind. Thus the extension of the concept is
nothing more than a property following inevitably upon
abstraction, and presupposing the comprehension of the
concept; in other words, the concept is universal only because
it reveals (clearly or obscurely) the necessary constitution of
some essence.
According to the nominalist theory, concepts contain The com¬
prehension
only what we put into them, for according to this hypo¬ of a concept
is the sum
thesis we do not attain through our concepts essences or of the
notes
natures which are what they are in themselves, independent which
constitute
of the manner in which we apprehend them. Consequently the concept
as it is in
the comprehension of a concept may be understood only itself not
only as it is
in a subjective sense ; it is merely a group of notes which for us.

we have explicitly collected and which, given our present

state of knowledge, constitute the concept for us. But, on
the contrary, if it be true that there really are essences or
natures, and that our concepts attain them, then their
comprehension must be understood in an objective sense. In
other words, the comprehension of a concept is the sum of
the notes that constitute the concept in itself : first and
foremost, notes that constitute the very essence that is pre¬
sented by this concept (e.g., rationality and animality in the
concept man), secondarily, the notes that are necessarily
derived from this essence and fundamentally contained in
its constitutive notes (properties, such as “ risibility,” “ gifted
with articulate speech,” etc., which are brought to light by
the reasoning, and are contained virtually in the concept,
although as yet unknown to us).
{a) It follows that the comprehension of a concept finds

1 Ibid. It exists in the real, but there it loses the universality it had in the
mind.
24 LOGIC

its first and foremost expression in the essential definition of

that concept (definition of man as a rational animal, or of
a triangle as a three-sided polygon).
Nevertheless, it may happen (and it usually does in the
inductive sciences) that we should never succeed in know¬
ing the notes that constitute an essence presented to our
mind by some concept. The comprehension of such a
concept still equals the sum of its constitutive notes and,
secondarily, those which are necessarily derived from
them, but since these constitutive notes are as yet unknown
to us, we have to determine the comprehension by
extrinsic signs, by properties empirically recognized as
characteristic. For want of an essential definition we have to
be satisfied with a descriptive definition and with gathering
by induction the other properties necessarily bound up
with those we have empirically recognized. Thus, without
being able to deduce the fact, we know from observation
that the comprehension of the concept ruminant includes
the characteristic cloven-footed. In such a case our concepts
really do reveal the necessary constitution of an essence,
but obscurely, and in such a manner that we cannot use
it in our knowledge.
(b) Connotation and Comprehension according to Keynes. The
English logican, Keynes, followed by Goblot, distinguishes
in what is generally called the comprehension of a concept
“ connotation ” and “ comprehension stricto sensti.” He reserves
the word connotation to signify those notes which serve to
define the object of the concept (e.g., an equilateral triangle
defined as a triangle whose sides are equal, or a ruminant
as an animal that chews the cud). He uses the word
comprehension merely to designate an object’s recognizable
properties (equal angles in an equilateral triangle, and
cloven-fieet in a ruminant).
This distinction 1 has no meaning except in the nomin¬
alist hypothesis wherein our concepts do not attain to

1 Furthermore, this distinction is defective on another account, for it does

not oppose the properties to the essence or to the characteristics which define the
object of a concept in itself, but rather does it oppose these properties to the
characteristics which define it for us, which are of use to us in defining it, and
which, in the case of descriptive definitions, are not constitutive elements of
the essence, but are precisely properties.
 THE CONCEPT 25

essences which are in themselves rich in properties

(whether they be attained intrinsically by an essential
definition as in the case of the equilateral triangle, or
extrinsically by a descriptive definition as in the case of the
ruminant). Although the characteristic “cloven-footed”
cannot be deduced from the definition of a ruminant, this
characteristic—granted that it is truly a property—is none
the less contained virtually in the essence presented to our
mind by the concept ruminant. Therefore both “ con¬
notation ” and “ comprehension ” really have the same
object.
The English logicians’ notion of “ connotation ” defi¬
nitively supposes that a concept may be reduced to what
we are actually and explicitly thinking about the several
notes or characteristics which we use to define it. The
concept man, for instance, contains only what actually
and explicitly I am thinking of, hie et nunc, in saying
“ animal ” and “ rational ” (instead of the vast intel¬
ligible content virtually contained in these two notes).
It is not surprising that those who so misinterpret its
nature should look upon the concept as something “ poor ”
and “ empty.”
(c) Comprehension according to Goblot.1 Goblot is not
content with Keynes’ distinction between the connotation 2
and the comprehension of concepts. His definition of com¬
prehension includes not only the properties necessarily
derived from an essence,3 but all the concepts 4 contained
therein as species or sub-species, and all the properties they in
turn imply. That is, he makes extension (the sum of the
concept’s inferiors) a part of the comprehension of the
concept. From this he naturally concludes that, if the
“ connotation ” of concepts is in inverse ratio to their
extension, their “ comprehension,” on the contrary,
increases and decreases along with their extension.
Reserving the use of the word concept for those elements

1 Cf. Goblot, Traiti de Logique, Chap. Ill : “ Le Concept et l’Idee,”

Scientia, t. XI, 1912.
2 For example, an animal as a “ sentient living organism.”
3 As “ mortal,” “ capable of locomotion,” etc. ,
4 As “ man ” (Aryan, Semite, etc., down to Peter and Paul), “ beast
(vertebrate, invertebrate, etc., down to this dog and this oyster).
26 LOGIC

explicitly contained in connotation,” he opposes to the

concept, “ poor ” and “ abstract ” notion that it is,1 the
Idea, which—to him—is the “ rich ” notion whose
“ comprehension ” includes the totality of determinations,
even to the individual determinations, that may be con¬
tained in a genus.2
Goblot errs here in treating the specific and individual
differences, contained as “ undetermined variables ” in a
genus, as if they were contained in the genus in act (or at
least virtually). But their undetermined state in the pure
and simple unity of the genus clearly indicates that they
exist in it only potentially.*
These specific differences could not be included in the
comprehension of the genus, for the very notion of compre¬
hension enters into logic for the sole purpose of designating
the notes that are attributed to an essence, necessarily
{per se), and not per accidens, and which are consequently
contained in the essence determinately, either actually (as
“ rational animal ” is in “ man ”), or virtually (as risibility
in the same concept). But Goblot’s innovation, on the
contrary, would bring into comprehension accidental
attributes which the concept contains only potentially,4 and
1 “ Animal ” reduced to what I am explicitly thinking when I say “ sen¬
tient living organism.”
2 “Animal” as including in itself
r-A->
man beast
- ^ „------.
Aryan Semite vertebrate invertebrate
^- - 1 .—-x-—^ k-■« -*■-

etc., down to Peter and Paul. etc., down to this dog and this
oyster.
3 “ A vertebrate,” as Goblot says (Log., n. 71, p. 113) “ is not an animal with
neither fur, feathers nor scales, but an animal whose tegumentary appendages
may have the forms, fur, feathers, or scales.” That is, these differences are
contained potentially, and only potentially, in the generic notion of vertebrate.
Therefore the genus is only potentially richer than the species. It is poorer
in act, and the specific difference really adds a determination to the generic
characteristics.
4 Animal is accidentally “ rational,” “ irrational,” “ barking,” or
“ruminant” (differentiating notes of species included under the genus
“ animal ”). Goblot includes, in the comprehension of a genus, not only these
differentiating notes, but all the accidental attributes which may be said of it
per accidens. “ If by the comprehension of the idea,” he says (Log., n. 127),
“ we understand all that may truthfully be affirmed of this idea, then all true
judgments are analytic.” If this were the case, then, because it is true that this
man is a philosopher and that man a robber, that this man was born in Athens
and that one in Pekin, that this one is standing and that one is sitting down.
 THE CONCEPT 27

would thus do nothing but confuse and pervert the notion

of comprehension as a logical property of our ideas.
The distinction he makes between the concept and the
Idea 1 is equally illegitimate ; for in reality what he calls
an “ idea ” really contains its ulterior differences only in
potency and not in act, and what he calls a concept is not
reducible to what is actually and explicitly thought of in
the definition but, like the “ Idea,” contains its properties
virtually, and its ulterior differences potentially, so that
these notions are not really two—but identical. Goblot
is too nominalistic in his notion of the concept, and too
realistic in his notion of the “ Idea,” undoubtedly because
he has been unable to achieve balance in his logic through
a sane theory of abstraction and the universal. Neverthe¬
less, some of his remarks about ideas are very accurate if
their Platonism be judiciously diluted : but these remarks
(there is, in a sense, more in ideas than there is in things,
they are logical necessities which the mind cannot arrange
according to any whim, etc.) are equally applicable to
concepts rightly understood.
(d) The Extension of a Concept is a Logical Property that
A nature has in our mind. The extension of a concept
includes both the individuals and the objective concepts
(universal but of less extension than itself) in which it is
realized. For example, both the concept “ man ” and the
concept “ beast,” are contained in the extension of the
concept “ animal,” and consequently, “ this man, that
man, this horse, this butterfly, etc.,” are also and by that
very fact contained in the extension of the concept. A
concept’s extension includes an infinite multitude of individuals
(for there is an infinity of possible human beings and
beasts). Therefore extension is measured not by the
greater or lesser number, but rather by the greater or lesser
(infinite) multitude of individuals to which a concept
applies. This alone suffices to show that a universal

this one pleasant and that one an idiot, this one a miser and that a spendthrift,
all these attributes, “ philosopher,” “ robber,” “ born in Athens,” etc., etc.,
would be contained in the comprehension of the genus Man.
1 Our concepts and ideas should be considered as opposed to Plato’s
“ separate Ideas ” and “ man in himself’’—but in another sense, as we shall
 28 LOGIC

concept is anything but a collection of individuals : It

applies to an infinite multitude because it is originally one
(in the mind). That which it presents immediately to the
mind is not a collection or series of individuals, but the
nature realized in each one of them.
We have said that the extension of a concept presupposes
its comprehension. Therefore, to consider a concept as to
its “ extension ” does not mean to abstract from its com¬
prehension, nor to look upon it as a mere collection of
individuals—that would simply amount to destroying it
as a concept. To consider “ man ” as to its extension is to
consider this object of thought in relation to the multitude
of individuals to which it applies, but it is also to consider
it as having a certain characteristic comprehension and
as being one in the mind, that is, as being something other
than the multitude of individuals in which it is realized.
Nominalism tends to confound the extension of the
concept with its resolution into a simple collection ofindividuals,
and thus completely vitiates the notion of extension. This
dangerous confusion, which really results in making logic
impossible, is not at all foreign to the idea of the syllogism
propounded by many modern logicians, particularly by
several “ extensivists,” 1 nor does it seem to be far removed
from the systematic aversion to extension manifested by
certain logicians (especially Hamelin) who are con¬
taminated by nominalism in spite of themselves.

13. “superior” and “inferior” concepts. Whatever

is man is also animal, but whatever is animal is not man. The
concept animal is implied in, or “ inferred ” from, the con¬
The cept man (it is part of its constitutive notes), but the concept
“inferiors ”
of a concept man is not implied in or “ inferred ” from the concept
are those
concepts animal (it is not part of its constitutive notes). The implied
which
“ infer ” it, or “ inferred ” concept is said to be
but which it
does not
itself
superior
“ infer,”
and which to the concept that implies or infers because it has a
it includes
from the
point of
greater extension
view of
extension. than the latter and includes it.

1 See below. Nos. 70, 81.

 THE CONCEPT
29

A superior concept is to its inferiors as the whole is to its

parts : thus “ animal ” and “ vegetal ” are parts of
“ living body,” “ man ” and “ beast ” parts of “ animal,”
“ Peter,” “ Paul,” “Jack ” and “John ” parts of “ man.”
The
Inasmuch as it contains its inferiors, the superior concept is inferiors of a
concept are
called a potential whole,1 or logical whole by logicians. Since, called its
subjective
from the point of view of “ predication ” (the attribution of parts.
a predicate to a subject by means of the verb to be), these
inferiors are subjects of which the superior concept is affirmed
(as “ an animal is a living body,” “ a plant is a living body,”
“ Peter is a man,” etc.) they are called subjective parts of this
concept.

Exercises. Were the following concepts : Christian,

Jew, Heretic, Atheist, Catholic, Lutheran, Polytheist—
produced for classification by arranging the inferior
concept beneath its superior, we should classify them as
below, either by mentioning the concepts missing from

1 A logical whole is said to be potential because it contains its parts only in

potency. “ Man ” and “ Beast ” are only potentially contained in the concept
“ Animal.”
30 LOGIC

some sections—here put in parentheses—or by leaving

their places blank.

Atheist (Theist)
f-;-K '

Polytheist (Monotheist)
/-*———.
Jew Christian
/-*->
Catholic Heretic
/-'->
Lutheran . . .

(1) Classify the following concepts in the same way :

man, ruminant, gymnosperm, coleoptera, captain of a
frigate, Hippocrates, substance, fir tree, soldier, beetle,
laryngologist, Musca domestica, Bombyx, Homer, doctor,
bull, animal, Phidias, fly, butterfly, corporal, Angio-
sperm, Diptera, poet, artilleryman, insect, Bovidse.
(2) In the following outline the letters replace concepts
arranged in order of decreasing extension. Substitute
for these letters any concepts answering to the same logical
conditions.
A
,-*->
B1 B2
f K a r ^ 'v

C1 C2 D1 D2

E1 E2 M1 M2
/-*-\ ,-*-s
F1 F2 N1 N2
/-*-^
G1 G2

(3) What are the subjective parts of the following

concepts, conic section, quadrilateral, art, vertebrate,
virtue ?

C. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF CONCEPTS

14. Concepts may be divided or classified from many

points of view. Psychology considers them in relation to
their origin, distinguishing for example between direct
concepts, by which we know something without reflecting
upon our act of knowing (“ the man,” “ the stone ”) and
 o I
THE CONCEPT D1

the reflex concept by which,, returning upon our act of know¬

ledge, we take as object either this act itself, or our mental
concepts, or the faculty from which they proceed.
Major Logic considers concepts from the standpoint of
the manner in which the diverse sorts of content, or objects
of thought, which they present to the mind, affect their
order within the mind (this is the basis for the division of
concepts into Predicables and Predicaments).
Minor Logic considers concepts simply as to the manner in
which they present their content (whatever it may be) to be dealt
with by the reason and to be arranged in discourse.
From this point of view concepts may be divided : i. In Different
headings of
relation to the act of simple apprehension itself. 2. Accord¬ division.

ing to their comprehension. 3. According to their extension.

1. Incomplex and Complex Concepts

15. IN RELATION TO THE ACT OF SIMPLE APPREHENSION
itself, concepts may be divided into

INCOMPLEX
Complex
or and
Incomplex
COMPLEX Concepts.

a division already met with in simple apprehension, the

objective concept being none other than the formal object of
simple apprehension.
{a) As we said above,1 if for the purpose of dividing
concepts they are considered both in themselves and as to
the manner in which they are conceived, division would be as
follows :
incomplex as to the manner in which they are conceived and
in themselves (incomplex voce et re) : “ man.”
complex as to the manner in which they are conceived but
not in themselves (complex voce non re) : “ rational animal.”
incomplex as to the manner in which they are conceived but
not in themselves (incomplex voce non re) : “ philosopher,”
“ Batrachiomyomachia.”
complex both as to the manner in which they are conceived
and in themselves (complex voce et re) : “ an expert in

1 See above, Section 1, n° 7.

32 LOGIC

philosophy,” “ the battle of the frogs and the mice,” 1 “ a

long-beaked heron helved with a slender neck.”
However, the expression, “ object of understanding ” refers
more naturally to objects of concepts considered in them¬
selves, whereas the expression (objective) concept refers
more naturally to objects of concepts considered as to the
manner in which they are conceived. The same concepts which
are said to be incomplex or complex in themselves (re) when
called “ objects of understanding ” will, on the contrary,
be said to be incomplex or complex as to the manner in
which they are conceived (voce) when called “ objective
concepts.” Therefore, because Minor Logic envisages the
manner in which its object is conceived, whether a
concept is complex or incomplex depends on whether it is
presented under one, or several intelligible aspects, and
whether it is expressed by a single term or by several, thus
we shall say that the definition “ rational animal ” is a
complex concept although it is in itself (re) incomplex.
(b) In relation to the act of simple apprehension, the
concept is also divided into the conceptus ultimatus (concept
of the thing) and conceptus non ultimatus (concept of the
sign), depending upon whether the concept considers the
thing itself (e.g., a concept of stone), or the written or

spoken word—the sign (the instrumental sign, as we

shall explain in Major Logic)—which, being known the
first, leads to the knowledge of the thing itself, e.g., the
concept of the word “ the stone”

2. Concrete and Abstract Concepts

16. By reason of their comprehension concepts may be
divided into two classes, for from this aspect they may present
things to us in two ways: either by a concept such as
man
or by a concept such as
humanity.
1 Between “ Heautontimoroumenos,” an incomplex concept voce non re, and
“ the self-torturer,” or between “ batrachiomyomachia ” and “ the battle of
the frogs and the mice,” or between “ Glarnerkrauterkaesefabrikanstochter ”
and “ the daughter of a Glaronese cheese manufacturer,” there is a difference
not only in words, but in the manner of conception (which is signified by the
word).
 THE CONCEPT 33

When we call Socrates man rather than Athenian or philo¬

sopher, we consider him under a certain intelligible aspect, a
certain determination which, when considered apart, we
call “ humanity.” A man is one who has humanity. Whether
I think man, or whether I think humanity, in both cases a
certain determination—humanity—is presented to my mind.
But in the first case, it is presented in the subject, which it
determines, and in the second it is presented without this
subject.
Logicians call a determination affecting a subject “ form ”
or “ formality ” in the broad sense, by analogy with the
form that determines the matter in works of art. Thus we
shall say that a concept such as “ man,” “ white,” “ philoso¬
pher ” presents to the mind a form in the subject which it
determines, whereas a concept such as “ humanity,” “ white¬
ness ” or “ philosophy ” presents a form without the subject it
determines, or prescinding from this subject. How then
shall we designate these two categories of concepts ? We
may call the first
CONCRETE

and the second

ABSTRACT

As a matter of fact, both the one and the other are abstract
in that they are both derived from sensible experience by
means of the intellectual operation called abstraction, and
in that both abstract from the individual notes of the intui¬
tively perceived sense objects 1; nevertheless, concepts of
the second type are really abstract to the second power,
because they disengage a. form from the subject it determines
in order to consider it by itself. Only in contrast with this
sort of abstraction are concepts such as man or philosopher
called : “ concrete.”
The concrete concept presents to the mind what such and
such a thing is (id quod est) ; an abstract concept presents
that by which the thing is such and such a thing (id quo est
aliquid).
(a) Abstraction will be fully treated in Major Logic,
Psychology and Critique. We shall simply note here

1 See J. Maritain, Introduction to Philosophy, pp. 154-159.

34 LOGIC

that, in distinguishing between the “ form ” and the

“ subject,” which it determines, logicians make no effort
whatsoever to discover whether this distinction is a
real distinction or simply a distinction of reason. It is the
task of the metaphysician to discern that humanity (human
nature) is really distinct from the person of Peter, whereas
Divinity is not really distinct from God, or that the
property of risibility is really distinct from the substance
of the human soul, whereas the property of being spiritual
is not.
(b) The terms concrete and individual must not be confused.
Man is a concrete concept because it presents the form
humanity in a subject, but the subject in question is not an
individual but a common subject that abstracts from all
individuating characteristics.
(c) Abstract concepts are always
ABSOLUTE

that is, the thing they present to the mind is always

presented as a substance, per modum per se stantis (“ white¬
ness,” “ humanity ”).
Concrete concepts are either
ABSOLUTE

when the thing they present to the mind is presented

after the manner of a substance (man, this tree), or else they
are
CONNOTATIVE

when the thing presented to the mind is presented as an

accident determining or “ connoting ” 1 a subject, per
modum alteri adjacentis (“white,” “blind”). That which
a connotative concept primarily and principally presents to
the mind is the same thing (“ form ” or “ determination ”)
which is presented by the corresponding abstract concept ;
that which it presents secondarily (per posterius, or ex con-
sequenti) is the subject (substance) affected by this deter¬
mination or by this accidental “form”.2 Absolute con¬
crete concepts also present the form signified by the
1 That is, making it known simultaneously with itself.
* Cf. St. Thomas, in Metaph. Aristot., lib, V, lect. 9, n. 894 (ed. Cathala).
 THE CONCEPT
35
corresponding abstract concept, but they present it
with and in the subject which it determines. Thus the
concept “ man ” immediately presents human nature as
present in a (universal) subject, and as constituting a
universal object of thought communicable to singular
subjects—to individual human beings.

§3. Collective and Divisive Concepts

17. Considered as to the multitude included in their
extension, concepts such as “ army,” “ family ” and
“ syndicate ” are said to be
COLLECTIVE

in the sense that they are realized, not in a multitude of

individuals, but in a multitude of groups of individuals
taken as a whole or “ collectively.”
It is a multitude of collections of individuals, each of which
is called an army, that—by reason of the intelligible nature
which they signify—constitutes the extension of the concept
army.
Concepts, such as “ man,” “ philosopher” and “ soldier,”
on the contrary, are called
Collective
DIVISIVE and Divisive
Concepts.
because they are realized in individuals themselves taken
one by one (“ divisively,” divisim).1
The distinction between the collective sense and the
divisive (or distributive) sense is important in the theory
of reasoning. It is evident that, taking the concept
“ man ” in the divisive or distributive sense, we may say
Men are mortal,
But Peter is a man,
Therefore Peter is mortal.
but that, taking the concept “ senator ” in the collective
sense, we cannot say
The senators are a chosen body,
Peter is a senator.
Therefore Peter is a chosen body.
1 The word “ distributive ” is often used in the sense of divisive, but its proper
meaning (see No. 18) does not really coincide with that of divisive.
36 LOGIC

nor taking the concept “ man ” collectively, can we say

The men (in this hall) are twelve,

Peter is a man,
Therefore Peter is twelve.

4. Extension of the Subject-Concept

18. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT-CONCEPT AS TO EXTENSION

(1) A concept may not only be considered in itself,

simply as a concept—as was done in the preceding division
—but it may also be considered as the subject of a proposition,
and in relation to the logical use we make of it in virtue of
its function as the subject of a proposition. In the first
division the concept was considered statically : it was thus
we compared the extension of the concept man with that of
animal and Hindoo ; in the second the concept is considered
dynamically, i.e., in its function as subject. Therefore, the
same concept, man, for example, may vary in relation to
extension, and the word extension no longer designates
only the breadth of the concept in relation to the individuals
in which it is realized, but also designates the breadth of
the concept in relation to the individual to which it is com¬
municable in its function of Subject, i.e., inasmuch as it
receives a predicate. The division of the concept to which
we are led by the consideration of extension from this new
point of view (the point of view of the concept-subject of
a proposition) is of the greatest importance in the theory
of the proposition and the syllogism.1
We know 2 that in itself the object directly presented to
the mind by every concept is universal, but according to
the usage we make of it we may consider this object either
in all its universality, or in a part of it merely, or again
as individualized in this or that singular subject in which
it is realized.
(2) Let us consider a concept-subject of a proposition.
We shall have to distinguish between the case in which
its extension is restricted to one individual determinate subject_

1 This division belongs to the theory of the suppositio of the term and the
concept (see below No. 27).
" Cf. J. Maritain, Introduction to Philosophy, pp. 159-172.
 THE CONCEPT
37
as “ this man,” “ this philosopher ” (or again “ Caesar,”
“ Leibnitz ”) and the case in which its extension is not
limited to one single individual determinate subject. In
the first case the concept is individual or

SINGULAR,
in the second it is
COMMON.

Furthermore, the extension of a (common) concept may

be restricted (in the sense that it is not considered as com¬
municable to all the individuals contained under it), with¬
out, however, being limited to a single, individual and
determinate subject, as “ some man,” “ some philosopher.”
In this event the concept is called

PARTICULAR.

On the contrary, when the extension of a concept is The concept-

subject of a
absolutely unrestricted (that is when it is taken as com¬ proposition
is singular,
municable to all the individuals contained under it), as particular,or
distributive
“ every man,” “ every philosopher,” the concept is (universal).

DISTRIBUTIVE OR UNIVERSAL.

In this case it is universally “ distributed ” to all individuals

having the nature man or philosopher. This universal nature
derived by abstraction from sense experience and placed
by the mind before itself is not, so to speak, “ touched up ”
by the mind from the point of view of extension, but is
considered in all its universality independent of all modality
or individual status.
“ A predicate,” says St. Thomas Aquinas,1 “ may be
attributed to a universal subject (i) by reason of the
universal nature itself, e.g., when the thing attributed is
related to the subject’s essence, or follows from its essen¬
tial principles : homo est animal or homo est risibilis, or (2) by
reason of some singular thing in which the predicate is
found, e.g., when the thing attributed is related to the
action of the individual : homo ambulat. . . .
“ In the first case the predicate is universally attri-

1 In Perihermeneias, lib. I, cap. VII, lect. 10, Nos. 9 and 13.

38 LOGIC

buted to the universal subject, praedicatur de eo universaliter,

because it belongs to it through the whole multitude in
which this universal is actualized, quia scilicet ei convenit
secundam tot am multitudinem in qua invenitur. To show this
we use the word ‘ all5 [or ‘ every ’] (omnis) signifying
that the predicate is attributed to the universal subject
according to all that is contained under this subject,
quantum ad totum quo sub subjecto continetur. . . .
“In the second case we use the word ‘ some ’ (aliquis
vel quidam) to show that the predicate is attributed to
the universal subject by reason of a thing that is singular
but which is designated under a certain indetermina¬
tion. . .
We might add that this division into taken universally
and taken particularly (or into distributive and particular)
affects the universal considered as existing in particular
things, secundum quod est in singularibus. But the universal
may also be considered as to the being it has in the mind,
secundum esse quod habet in intellectu. In the latter event,
since it is not taken as communicated to individuals in
reality, but, on the contrary, as separated from them, it
is taken neither universally nor particularly, but simply
as one, ut unum, whether a predicate which refers to an
operation of the mind be attributed to it—as, for example :
“ Man is attributable to several subjects ”—or even
whether a predicate which refers to the being which the
nature seized by thought has in the thing be applied to
it—as “ Man is the noblest of creatures.” “ In fact this
predicate belongs to human nature even as existing in
individuals ; for any individual man whatsoever is
nobler than all irrational creatures. However, all indi¬
vidual men are not one man outside of thought, but only
in the mind’s conception : it is in this manner that the
predicate is attributed to the subject here. That is—it is
attributed to it as to one thing ” {ibid.).

The following table shows the division of the (collective

or divisive) concept as to extension, considering it from
the point of view of its use in the proposition and
reasoning.
 THE CONCEPT 39

The Concept

Collective Divisive
Singular . this army this man
Subject- i Particular. . some army some man
Concept ' Common < Distributive . every army each man
[ (or universal)

DIVISION OF THE CONCEPT BY REASON OF EXTENSION

*(3) In thinking we arrange and assemble (abstract)

intellectual objects which are applicable to an indefinite
multitude of individuals though not necessarily constituting
a part of their essential notes.
Because we act in this way it is absolutely imperative to
consider the extension as well as the comprehension of our
intellectual objects so as to define exactly the field within
which their application is legitimate. For instance, we may
reasonably apply the universal liar to individuals having
human nature, and thus combine the object of thought,
man, and the object of thought, liar ; but if we deduced
from this that every philosopher being a man is a liar, our
reasoning would be false. We should have considered the
extension of the subject-concept, man (that is, we should
have considered to what extent it is communicable to its
inferiors), in relation to the concept liar ; this we do when
we think : “ some man is a liar.” Since the subject-concept,
man, is restricted or particularized in relation to liar, we cannot
apply the term liar to a subject from the mere fact that this
subject is human. In the same way we may reasonably
combine the concepts triangle and isosceles, because the
term isosceles is a term applicable to a category of triangle,
but we would be reasoning falsely in deducing from this
that in all triangles the median and the height are the same.
The proper line of reasoning would be : “ In an isosceles
triangle, the median and the height are the same ; some
triangle is isosceles ; therefore in some triangle the median
and the height are the same.”
These elementary remarks suffice to show the futility
of dreaming of a purely “ comprehensive ” logic, wherein
all consideration of “ extension ” would be banned, as
40 LOGIC

some contemporary logicians have done (notably MM.

Hamelin and Rodier).1
At the same time they show us why this division of con¬
cepts into singular, particular and distributive or universal plays
such an important role in the theory of reasoning and the
proposition. As we have seen, it is in function of the
concept’s role in the proposition that this division is
established.
Nevertheless, from the point of view of vocabulary
(especially from the point of view of the use of the word
universal) this division gives rise to a slight complication
which it might be well to clarify. The object directly
presented to the mind by every concept, being abstract,
is in itself universal, that is, it is one with an aptitude to be in
many. A “ collective ” concept, e.g., family, is a universal
concept, for it is applicable to all families, this one as well
as that; a “particular” concept, e.g., “some man” is
a universal (viz., the concept “man”), whose extension
we have restricted to an indeterminate individual subject.
Finally an “ individual ” or “ singular ” concept, e.g.,
“ Peter ” or “ this man,” is not singular in the sense that it
would enable us to know an individual immediately in
his own individuality ; for we know that we have neither
direct intellectual knowledge nor direct concepts of the
singular as such.2 This “ singular ” concept is in fact a
universal (e.g., man) that the mind has led back and pressed
down, if I may use such a phrase, upon a singular thing,
and whose extension it has restricted to one single deter¬
minate individual that may be pointed at—“ this man ”
or that answers to some name—“ Peter ”—and to certain
perceptions or sensible images (Peter presents himself to
my sight or imagination under such and such an aspect).

1 In spite of his personal prejudices against extension, M. Hamelin is

altogether right in saying (Systcmc d’Aristote, p. 164). “ If experience plays a
part in knowledge, especially if this part is not merely provisional but defini¬
tive, or, in other words, if there is contingency in the world, Logic, then, must
take into account the quantity of propositions . . . and we must admit that
Aristotle was right (in emphasizing the importance of logical quantity).” . . .
We might add that since this is so, and since in a perfect syllogism the subject
of the Major premise becomes the predicate of the Minor, it is impossible to
construct the theory of reasoning without considering the extension of the
predicate as well as that of the subject.
2 See J. Maritain, Introduction to Philosophy, pp. 154-156, 170-172.
 THE CONCEPT 41

In short, it is only in an indirect manner, and by this bend¬

ing back of the universal on the sensible, that such a concept
may be “ singular.”

We may, however, have a proper and distinct concept of

the singular. In fact the intelligence forms propositions
about singular subjects, e.g., “ Peter is a man,” “ Socrates
is not Plato,” which presuppose that it knows these singular
objects determinately, and distinguishes one individual
from another. Furthermore, it compares the universal
to the singular, which also indicates a proper knowledge
of the latter.
But the proper concept of the singular is a rejtex concept
that brings the universal object of thought back upon
the images from which it was abstracted, and upon the
singular which they presented, and thus expresses this
singular and has it as its term.1

But in the present division the word “ universal ” is

taken in a special sense, and is to be understood in relation
to the role of the concept in the proposition of which it is the
subject. Thus in the proposition “ Every man is mortal,”
the predicate “ mortal ” is attributed to the subject by
reason of human nature considered in itself—abstracting
from any individual modality. In such a proposition the
concept man is taken in all its universality. Hence the name
“ universal ” is given both to the subject “ every man,”
and to the proposition itself.2
But, on the other hand, in the proposition “ some man is a
liar ” the predicate liar is attributed to man only under
certain individual modalities. The subject designates no
longer the nature “ man ” as completely de-individualized
and taken as communicable to all the individuals without

1 Cf. John of St. Thomas, Curs. phil. Phil. Nat., De anima, q. X, a. 4 ; Fer-
rariensis, in I Contra Gentiles, cap. LXV, §8, ad 3 ; Bannez, in Sum. Theol.,
I, q. 86, a. 1, dub. 2.
2 We must be careful to say “ every man ” and not “ all men ” (tout homme,
et non pas “ tous les hommes ”). The first expression “ denotes ” the universal
nature “ man,” which is derived by abstraction from individuals and is the
first object of thought; the second designates only a collection of individuals
possessing human nature. To make a systematic use of the latter manner 0/
speech in formulating universal majors in the theory of the syllogism—as do
so many modern logicians—is to betray great crudity in Logic.
42 LOGIC

exception to which it may be applied, but rather does it

designate the nature “ man,” along with an individual
although indeterminate manner of being, or, to be more
precise, it designates an indeterminate individual (individuum
vagum) possessing this nature.1 In such a proposition the
concept man is taken as communicable only to one or to a few
of the individuals contained under it. Therefore, both the subject
“ some man ” and the proposition itself are called “ par¬
ticular.” 2
Finally, in the proposition “ this man is wise,” the predicate
is attributed only to a certain determinate subject possessing
human nature and the concept man is restricted to a
determinate individual. For this reason both the subject
“ this man ” and the proposition itself are called singular or
individual.
(a) As we have said above, the word universal should be
differently understood according as it refers to the concept
taken in itself, in which sense every direct concept is
universal, let us say universal as abstract—or as it refers
to the concept as subject of a proposition—in which sense only
unrestricted common concepts are called universal, let
us say universal as distributive.3
Likewise the word particular may be understood in two
different senses :
(1) As related to the concept considered as subject of a
proposition it is opposed to the universal as distributive, and
designates a common restricted concept. This was the
meaning explained in the text above : some man. We
shall say that in this sense the concept is particular-as-
restricted.
(2) But the word “ particular ” may also be related to
the concept considered in itself, in which case it signifies a

1 Cf. St. Thomas, loc. cit., No. 13. In certain cases the particular subject
does not designate an indeterminate individual but one of the inferior universals
of the concept in question : “ Some animal (viz., man) is rational.”
2 The same care should be exercised in illustrating this point as that men¬
tioned above in note 4 that “ some man ” (quelque homme) should be under¬
stood in relation to the universal nature “ man ” and not in relation to a certain
collection of individuals having human nature.
3 Cf. St. Thomas, in Anal. Post., 1, I, lect. 11, n. 2.
 THE CONCEPT 43
concept universal as abstract, but embraced within
another more universal concept. Thus the concept
“ man 55 is less universal (universal as abstract) than the
concept “ animal.” And because the concept “ man ”
considered as an inferior of the concept “ animal ” has
for its extension only a part of the latter concept, it may be
opposed to the concept “ animal ” as the particular to
the universal. For example, in going from the proposi¬
tion “ every animal is mortal ” to the proposition “ every
man is mortal ” we go from the universal to the particular.
In this case the word “ particular ” no longer concerns
the extension of the subject-concept as related to the
predicate in a proposition, but simply the extension of
the concept taken in itself as related to another concept.
In this sense the concept may be called “ particular as
inferior.”
Let us examine the proposition “ every man is mortal.”
Obviously, if the concept “ man ” is particular in the second
sense (particular as inferior), it cannot be particular in
the first sense (particular-as-restricted), for its universality
is not limited, it is a universal-as-distributive concept. The
same is true of the proposition in question, which may
be said to be particular in the second sense but is universal
in the first.
Hence there arises a possibility of confusion whose
source is in the profound law of analogy which rules the
life and natural migrations of words and which entails
almost inevitable linguistic imperfections. It is incumbent
upon the logician to teach us to distinguish between the
different meanings of the same word, and any evasion
of this duty by imposing a mechanical rigidity upon
linguistic signs would be foredoomed, for it would merely
be an attempt to remedy a natural imperfection by an
artificial and more injurious one.1
{b) This possibility of confusion is increased by the
1 The vocabulary of the ancients (in which the words extension and compre¬
hension themselves were not included) was less confusing than ours on this
point. For whereas we say that a subject is singular, universal (as distributive)
and particular (as restricted), the scholastics were wont to say that the subject
was singular, universal taken universally and universal taken particularly.
 LOGIC
44
use of the word “ general ” as synonymous (i) sometimes
with universal as abstract, or (ii) sometimes with common,
or, (iii) sometimes with universal as distributive, and thus
as opposed respectively to (i) the particular as inferior
or the singular as such (which is the direct object of sensa¬
tion but never of a concept) (ii) the singular concept, (iii)
the particular as restricted
Once forewarned, how'ever, it is not difficult to guard
against such confusion, but it would be more easily
avoided were we to agree once and for all

(1) to use “particular” only in the sense of par¬

ticular as restricted, never “ particular as inferior ” ;
(2) to simply say “ less universal ” (or less general)
instead of “ particular-inferior ” ;
(3) to use “ general ” only in the sense of universal
as abstract, never in the sense of “ universal as dis¬
tributive.”

In this way particular will always be opposed to universal

as distributive, never to universal as abstract, and general
will always be opposed to less universal or less general, but
never to particular.1
The convention of never using the word general in the
sense of universal-distributive seems acceptable and wc
will adhere to it. But it is doubtful whether what has
been said here concerning the word “ particular ” should
ever come into usage, for it would be a constraint upon
the natural movement of language and would probably
involve more confusion than clarity. Therefore we shall

1 This is the general import of Goblot’s interesting observations on the use

of the words “general” and “ particular” (Traiti de Logique, Paris, 1918,
§98, 108, 160). The author himself attaches excessive importance to these
observations, because he has failed to understand that the words universal and
particular may be used only according to a certain analogy between the concept
taken in itself and the concept as subject of the proposition. Furthermore he does not
see that the opposition of the singular (term or singular concept) to the general
(understood as synonymous with common), like the opposition of the par¬
ticular (as restricted) to the universal (as distributive), concerns the concept’s
rule in the proposition in such a manner that propositions should be divided
according to quantity into three groups : singular, particular and universal
(although singular propositions are equivalent to universals both in the theory
of the conversion of propositions and in the theory of the syllogism. See
below No. 51).
 THE CONCEPT 45

not bind ourselves to it, but shall rely on the context to

clarify our use of this word in each instance.

“ Universal ” and “ Particular ” in relation to the Concept itself.

Every direct Concept is f more universal (more general) or
universal (universal as J less particular concepts . “ animal ”
abstract) I less universal (less general) or
^more particular concepts . “ man ”
| Reflex concept of the singular . . . . . “ this man ”]

“ Universal ” and “ Particular ” in relation to the Concept as

Subject
( universal (distributive) . “ all man ”
Common Concept.
{ particular . . . “ some man ”
Singular Concept. . . . . . . “ this man ”

use of the words “universal” and “particular”

SECTION 3. THE TERM

A. NOTION OF THE ORAL TERM

19. preliminary remarks. Man is naturally a “social”

or “ political ” animal ; he is made to live in society (this
is so, as we shall see in ethics, on account of his specific
character, a being capable of reasoning, because he cannot
make fitting progress in the work of reason except through
help and instruction of others). Consequently, the
aptitude for acquiring knowledge of things is not enough ;
he must be able to express his knowledge verbally. From
this necessity arose the system of conventional signs, called
language, by which men communicate their thought : a
wonderful instrument fashioned of articulate sound passing
through the air, imparting through the most pliant and
subtle of materials our innermost and most spiritual selves.
Furthermore, because man, unlike the animal, is not
riveted to the present moment, it is fitting that he should
make his thought known to those distant from him in time
or space 1 ; hence the necessity for a second system of
signs, more material and less perfect than the first which
it represents, and this system is called writing.2

1 Cf. St. Thomas, in I Periherm, lect. 2, n. 2.

2 We speak here of phonetic and alphabetic writing which represents the oral
signs of language. Ideographic writing (such as Egyptian hieroglyphics) does
not represent the oral signs of language, but directly represents ideas.
 46 LOGIC

Language and writing (oral and written signs) are essen¬

tially destined to the social manifestation of thought.
However, because our sentient nature is ever in search of
material support, these systems of signs offer to thought as
their secondary effect the valuable assistance of precision,
stability and economy of effort. But we must beware of
thinking that these material signs are absolutely necessary to
thought, that they could ever represent it as perfectly as a
tracing, or that they could ever act as its substitute and
replace it.
20. definition of the oral term. An oral term or simply
a term, is the oral expression of a concept, or more precisely
it is :
The term is every articulate sound that conventionally signifies a concept.
an articulate
sound con¬
ventionally Let us note in what sense these terms are conventional signs :
signifying a
concept. man’s use of words to express his concepts is natural and
derives from the faculties and propensities proper to his
essence, but the fact that these particular words signify
these particular concepts is not due to nature itself, but to
an arbitrary disposition of man’s own.
Since the “ mental term ” is the concept itself as the “ written
term ” is the graphic sign of the oral term, it is evident that
the written term signifies the oral term, which signifies
the mental term or concept, which in turn signifies the
thing. Hence the axiom : words or terms are signs of ideas or
concepts, and ideas or concepts are signs of things.

*(a) Words are not pure signs (“formal signs”) as

concepts are. They strike the ear before speaking to the
mind, and they signify ideas only by first calling up sense
images. They have their own proper realm, their own
resonances and associations, and it is only on condition
that we master them by constant effort that we may
come to use them well.
The psychological mechanism of oral expression is more
complex than it would seem at first glance. Since the
object of language is to lead the hearer actively to form
within him the ideas which are in the mind of the speaker,
the latter can succeed in his task only by re-forming in
his own mind, beginning with the images which will
 THE CONCEPT
47
supply him with words, the same ideas that he bids the
hearer to form in his mind. Therefore the word is
naturally ordained as to its end, not to an image which
would be simply “plastered” on to the'idea, but to
form and manifest the idea itself, starting from images
which merely serve as matter. The art of oral expression
consists in disposing this sensible matter by means of
words so as exactly to reveal the idea—which is an entirely
spiritual thing. This is by no means easy to do. It has
been said that perhaps the most striking and unusual
poetic “ images ” originate in the difficulties that man
experiences in telling himself and really making himself
see even the most ordinary things by the help of the imagery
of speech, difficulties which constantly constrain the poets
to renew this imagery.
*(b) The term signifies simultaneously and in the same
act both the concept and the thing, but it immediately
signifies the concept (the mental concept or sign of the
thing, and the objective concept, or the thing as object
presented to the mind) and only signifies mediately the
thing itself (as it exists outside the mind) by means of the
concept : voces significant intellectus conceptiones immediate,
et eis mediantibus res 1; nomina non significant res nisi mediante
intellectu.2 For, (i) we intend to have our words impart
“ what we are thinking about things,” that is—our concepts ;
(2) the word man, for example, signifies human nature,
abstracting from individual human beings, but human
nature thus abstracted exists only in our apprehension
or in our concept, not in the real ; (3) what we say
signifies either the true or the false, but truth or falsity
exists only in our concepts, not in things themselves ;
(4) if words themselves signified things directly there
could be no equivocal terms.3
*(c) Which concept is more immediately signified
by the term, the mental concept or the objective concept ?

1 St. Thomas, in Perihemuneias, lect. 2, n. 5 ; cf. q. IX dt Potentia, a. 5.

* Ibid., lect. 10, n. 4.—Thus the word “ man ” simultaneously signifies
(eadem significatione) human nature and the individuals who have this nature
(John of St. Thomas, Log., p. 95).
* The division of terms into univocal, analogous and equivocal will be studied
in Major Logic.
48 LOGIC

Thomists answer 1 that the term signifies the mental

concept

more immediately (immediatius)

but signifies the objective concept

more principally {princip alius).

Indeed, that which is first made known by the term is

the interior sign that we form in order to perceive the
thing and to manifest it immaterially within us (the
mental concept or verbum mentis). But the term signifies
this concept simply as something known in the very
exercise of the act of knowing {in actu exercitu), not as
known in the act of signifying the known {in actu signato).
For the mental concept, being essentially the sign of
the thing, carries the mind directly to the objective
concept (the thing that has been made an intellectual
object by means of this mental concept) and it does not
itself become an object of knowledge except by an act of
reflection.
*{d) Strictly speaking, the definition of the term which
we have just given is more applicable to the scholastic
dictio (the word) than to the term properly so-called (the
terminus) ; for the expressions “ word ” and “ oral
term,” as a matter of fact or materially, designate the
same thing but emphasize different formal aspects.
As its etymology would indicate, the proper meaning
of the term {terminus) is the ultimate element into which a
logical composite may be analysed or “ resolved ” (and
consequently the first element of which such composites
are made).2 The oral term may therefore be considered
from several different aspects ; when looked upon as
the last element of the enunciation, it is defined as “ an
articulate sound, having a conventional meaning, with
which a simple proposition is constructed ’’—that is, an

1 J?.hn °f St> Thomas> Log. Prima Pars, lllustrationes, q. 1, de Termino

a. 5, Great, Elementa, n. 19.
2 ,Thls >s why the ancient logicians used “ term ” not only to signify the
.oral term, but also the concept or mental term itself. 6 r
 THE CONCEPT 49

enunciative term (see No. 23) ; when considered as the

ultimate element of a syllogistic composition or argumen¬
tation, it is divided into subject and predicate and called
the syllogistic term.

21. EXTENSION AND COMPREHENSION OF TERMS. The Same

may be said of the extension and comprehension of terms
as was said of the extension and comprehension of the
concepts which they signify (see Nos. 10-13).

B. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF TERMS

i. Generalities

22. division of the term. A term may be considered

simply as the expression of a concept, as part of an enun¬
ciation or proposition, or as a part of an argumentation.
Considered simply as the expression of a concept, the
term is divided in the same manner as the concept and may
be either incomplex or complex, concrete or abstract,
collective or divisive.

(a) However, as we shall see in Major Logic, whereas

concepts may be either univocal or analogous, terms may be
either univocal, analogous or equivocal.
{b) Certain terms signify not concepts precisely, but
rather aspects or modes which the mind is forced to
isolate and consider apart because of the exigencies of
oral expression. Such terms are called syncategorematic.
A term is
CATEGOREMATIC Categore-
matic and
syncategore-
matio terms.
{significative) when it signifies an object that is some¬
thing by itself {aliquidper se).
It is
SYNCATEGOREMATIC

{consignficativus) when it signifies a simple modification

of something ; e.g., “ all,” “ some,” “ fast ” ; “ easily,”
etc.
The categorematic term is in turn divided into absolute
 LOGIC
50
(man, humanity, whiteness) and connotative (white,
learned) (see above, No. 16, c).—(Every adjective is a
connotative term, but the converse is not true : father,
“ creator ” are connotative terms.)

(c) The division of the term into complex and incomplex

corresponds to the division of the concept into complex
and incomplex as to the manner in which it is conceived
(see above, No. 15).
An incomplex term does not admit of parts that have a
meaning of their own, e.g. : “ man,” “ legislator.” (Un¬
doubtedly the syllables “ legis ” have meaning when
considered apart but they do not exercise this meaning
when in composition. Were we to forget the etymology
of the word legislator for the moment and suppose its
syllables to be devoid of meaning, the signification of the
word would remain unchanged.) A complex term does
admit of parts each of which has its own separate meaning,
e.g., “ a learned man.” 1

The logician The logician, considering the term and the proposition
primarily
considers the primarily as to their use in reasoning, is chiefly interested
division of
the term in the term’s division into subject (S.) and predicate (Pr.), a
into subject
and division which is of essential importance in the syllogism
predicate.
wherein the term is considered as part of the argumentation
(“syllogistic term”). The subject-term, in a proposition is
the term to which the verb to be applies a determination ;
the predicate-term is the term which the verb to be applies
to the subject in order to determine it. Inasmuch as it
applies a determination to a subject the verb to be is called
the copula (C.) because its function is to unite the Pr. and the
S., or to affirm their real identity. “ The snow is white,”
is equivalent to saying, “ there is an identity between the
thing which I designate by the word ‘ snow ’ (the word
which is subject or subjected to a determination in this
proposition), and the thing which I designate by the word
‘white’” (the predicate-word which has the determining
role in my proposition).

1 See n. 39, note 2, on the difference between a complex term and imperfect
discourse.
 THE CONCEPT
51

§2. The Noun and the Verb

23. DIVISION OF THE TERM CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE

ENUNCIATION.1 In considering the essential elements into

which every enunciation or proposition is necessarily
resolved we see that even the least significant enunciation
requires two parts or terms—

THE NOUN

which has the role of stable extreme 2 in the proposition, and The enuncia -
tive term is
divided into
THE VERB noun and
verb.

which plays the role of the uniting medium. For example :

(noun) (verb) (noun) (verb) (noun)

Peter lives ; Peter is living.

Every verb is equivalent to the verb to be followed by an

attribute or predicate : “ I write ” is equivalent to “ I am
writing.” Thus the verb to be is justly entitled the verb par
excellence. In a proposition such as “ I am ” (we shall call
such a proposition a “ proposition with a verb-predicate ”),
which is equivalent to “ I am existing,” the verb to be
exercises the function of both copula (inasmuch as it unites
the subject to the predicate) and predicate (inasmuch as it
signifies the existence attributed to a subject), but it directly
manifests [in actu signato) the latter function only. In a
proposition such as “ Peter is a man ” (which we shall call
“ a proposition with a verb-copula ”) in which the verb
to be is followed by the predicate it applies to the subject,
the verb directly manifests only its function as copula. This
copulative function is always implied by the verb to be (and
consequently by all verbs) because it corresponds to the

1 The division in question—the essential division of the enunciative term

into noun and verb is made from the point of view of language (oral sign, term).
From the point of view of thought the enunciative concept is divided into subject
and predicate ; but we must notice that this enunciative predicate is not the same
as the predicate in the ordinary sense (the syllogistic predicate). The enuncia¬
tive predicate is the undivided aggregate of the verbal copula and the predicate
in the ordinary sense. The union of the S. and this Pr. results from the funda¬
mental signification of the verb which expresses the act according to the very
mode of the act, or inasmuch as it completes or terminates the subject.
2 This includes “ nouns ” in general, i.e., predicate adjectives used as nouns
(Peter is white) and substantive adjectives used as subject (white is a colour),
as well as substantive nouns.
 52 LOGIC

very act of the mind itself applying a determination (a

predicate) to a subject.
The verb The first sense of the verb to be is that in which the copu¬
to be signifies
i° actually lative function is exercised without being directly mani¬
exercised
existence fested as it is in other verbs and in which existence is
(Peter is) ;
2° as a copula attributed as a predicate to a subject : “ I am/’ “ Hector
the relation
of Pr. to S. is no more ” (propositions with verb predicates).
(Peter is a
musician). From this first sense is derived the second wherein the
verb to be directly manifests its copulative function : “I
am sick,” “ Achilles is not invulnerable ” (propositions with
verb-copulas). It is important to note that, even when
used simply as a copula, the verb to be continues to signify
at least ideal or possible existence. In fact the copula does
nothing but express the relation (habitudo) of the predicate
to the subject ; but what relation ? The relation of identi¬
fication of one with the other, the relation by which these
two objects of thought, distinct as concepts (ratione), are
identified in the thing {re) in actual or possible real or
ideal existence. In other words, when used as a copula
Nevertheless the verb to be affirms that the thing, with such and such
the verb to be
always sig¬ determinations, exists cither actually outside the mind
nifies this
relation (of or possibly outside the mind or, in the case of beings of
identification
between S. reason, in the mind only. The proposition “ a myriagon is a
and Pr.) as
existing (in ten-thousand-sided polygon ” is equivalent to : “ the object
actual orpos-
sible real or of thought myriagon exists {in possible existence outside the
ideal exist¬
ence). mind) with this essential determination : “ ten-thousand
sided polygon.” When I want to signify that the determina¬
tion (the form), “ unable to exist in reality ” is found in a
certain subject, e.g., a “ chimera ” I have recourse to the
notion of existence and the verb to be in order to combine
these two objects of thought and I say “ A chimera is
unable to exist in reality ” that is “ the object of thought
chimera exists {in my mind) with this property of being unable
to exist in reality.”
Thus the verb to be always signifies existence in a proposi¬
tion with a verb-copula just as much as in a proposition
with a verb-predicate 1 ; and all propositions affirm or

Et ipsum verbum est, sive fiat propositio de secundo adjacente, ut

quando dico : Petrus est, sive de tertio adjacente, ut cum dico : Petrus est
albus semper significat idem, scilicet esse, quia ut dicit sanctus Thomas”
 THE CONCEPT 53
deny the actual or possible, real or ideal existence of a certain
subject determined by a certain predicate. In other words,
they either affirm or deny that this subject and this predicate
are identified in actual or possible, real or ideal existence.
Therefore, as we shall see in Critique, truth, whether it
be a truth in the “ ideal ” or in the “ existential ” order,
always consists in the conformity of our mind with being or
existence,1 with possible existence in the first case, and actual
existence in the second.
Hence the logical law : for an (affirmative) proposition
to be true it is not enough that the predicate agree with the
subject, the subject must also exist in the manner of existence
required by the copula. For example, if I say “ Bonaparte is
first consul ” the proposition is not true because the subject,
Bonaparte, does not exist in the actual existence required
by this copula (that is, in present time). Bonaparte was
consul, but he is so no more (see below, No. 27).

*(a)2 The propositions which we are designating as

“propositions with a verb-copula ” Were called propositions
de tertio adjacente by the ancients ; these include all such
propositions as “ I am writing,” “ Peter is a man,” in
which the subject, predicate and copula are explicitly
stated.3 Likewise they called “propositions with a verb-
predicate ” “ de secundo adjacente ” (e.g., “ Peter lives,” “ I
write”), in which the verb signifies the predicate itself
at the same time as it unites it to the subject. In a
proposition de secundo adjacente, “ Peter is,” the verb to be
is attributed to the subject as a predicate, and signifies
that Peter exists in reality. In a proposition de tertio
adjacente, “ Peter is a man,” the verb to be is not attributed

(I, Periherm., lect. 5, in fine) : “ ista actualitas . . . est communiter omnis

formac, give substantialis, sive accidentalis, et inde est quod, quando volumus
significare quamcumque formam inesse alicui, significamus per verbum est,
unde ex consequent significat compositionem ” (John of St. Thomas, Log.,
Sum., lib. I, cap. 6). Owing to a misunderstanding of this doctrinal point
modern logicians—especially certain theorists in mathematical logic (cf.
Rougier, Structures des theories deductives, pp. 5-13)—have involved themselves
in many difficulties.
1 Verum sequitur esse rerum (St. Thomas, de Verit., q. 1, a. 1, 3rd sed contra).
2 In this case the proposition is composed of only two words, the second of
which (the verb-predicate) is united to the subject.
* In this case the proposition is composed of three words, the third of which
(the predicate-noun) is united to the subject by and with the verb-copula.
 LOGIC
54
to the subject as a predicate but merely as joined to the
predicate “ man,” so as to form with it but a single
member of the proposition attributed to the subject.
In all cases, whether it signifies the predicate itself,
or is necessary in order to unite it to the subject, the verb
“ stands with the predicate.”
*(b) The Noun.1 The noun is a term that signifies
things “ sine tempore ” as intemporal. Time is excluded,
not from the things that the nouns may signify (for there
are nouns that denote time), but from the manner in which
the noun signifies. For the noun signifies the thing as stable,
as having a certain mode of permanence (even if the thing
itself is not stable, e.g., “ movement,” “ change ” ; this
stability in the noun’s mode of signifying does not mean that
the thing itself is stable, but means that the noun takes
as its foundation in the thing the stability of the essence
or nature of this thing. Time is always time ; and as
long as it exists “ movement ” qua movement, immutably
keeps its nature, movement).
*(c) The Verb.2 The verb is a term that signifies things

1 Aristotle (Periherm., I, c. II, 16a 19 ; lect. 4 in St. Thomas) defines the

noun as (A) vox signification ad placitum, (B) sine tempore, (C) cujus nulla pars
significat separata, (D) finita, (E) recta. (A) is the general definition of the term.
(B) distinguishes the noun from the verb. (C) excludes complex terms and
imperfect discourse from the definition of the noun (see below No. 39). (D)
excludes indeterminate terms (infiniti, non-man). (E) excludes oblique terms
that cause the noun to “ decline ” from its proper nature [declension of nouns]
(in such a case the noun is signified not as tanquam quid, et ut extremum quoddam
in se, sed ut alterius, respective ad alterum) : liber Petri, Peter's book; video Petrum
—I am seeing Peter.
2 Aristotle (ibid., c. Ill, 16b, 6 ; lect. 5 of St. Thomas) defines the verb as :
(A) vox signification ad placitum, (B) cum tempore, (C) cujus nulla pars significat
separata, (D) finita, (E) et recta, (F) et eorum quae de altero praedicantur, semper est
nota.
(A) is the general definition of the term.
(B) distinguishes the verb from the noun.
(C) excludes complex verbs.
(D) excludes indeterminate verbs (e.g., non-loving).
(E) excludes oblique Verbs : the past and future tenses “ decline ” from
the proper nature of the verb, which is to signify things as acting and temporal,
for they do not denote pure and simple action or movement, but denote it
in the past or in the future. Therefore the present indicative alone corre¬
sponds to the proper notion of the verb : all the other forms participate in
the verb’s nature in an imperfect manner.—The verb always denotes the
attribution of a predicate to a subject, and in this sense is said to always “ stand
with the predicate ” (see above a).
(F) excludes the participle and the infinitive, which are both reducible to
the noun as well as to the verb.
 THE CONCEPT 55
“ cum tempore,” as temporal—in the manner of an action
or movement or with a certain mode that consists in
being effected in time : “ Peter speaks.” Every verb
(e.g., “ I see ”) signifies in a single concept and as a
single object, both a certain thing (in this case, vision)
and a certain mode that is characteristic of the verb.
This mode consists in the action or movement according
to which this thing flows from the subject and is joined
to it. Thus the verb to be signifies existence as exercised in
time. Whatever is independent of time or eternal is
thereby excluded, not from the things the verb may
signify (for the truths “ every triangle has three interior
angles together equal to two right angles,” and “ God is
good ” are independent of time), but from the manner in
which the verb signifies these things. For of itself the verb
signifies things as taking place in time ; eternal things
are grasped by our intelligences by analogy with transi¬
tory things—they are signified with a temporal mode
that relates not to themselves but to our mode of signi¬
fication.1
*(</) Since language cannot simultaneously express
both the stability of essences and the flux of movement it
puts the burden once and for all upon two terms, the
noun to express the former, and the verb to express the
latter. Both of these terms accomplish their task by the
manner in which they signify each, viz., stability of essences
1 All the above notions are primarily true of the intellectual role played
de jure by the elements of language considered in themselves. This analysis
is in no way affected by the fact that de facto and in certain cases, language
does not explicitly exercise all these functions, and that in some tongues the
verb to be does not exist (its functions remaining unexpressed). That is the
affair of descriptive Psychology but in no way concerns Logic. Undoubtedly
there is no actually existing language, much less any artificial language con¬
structed by some well-meaning philanthropist or logician, that absolutely
satisfies the requirements of language considered as a purely logical type.
The Aristotelian definition of the verb needs to be well understood, turn
tembore does not mean that the verb must mark the difference between past,
present and future time (on the contrary—the past and future decline (descend,
or deviate) from the proper nature of the verb—see the preceding note).
What this expression means is that it is essential that the verb signify something
in the manner of an action or movement. Therefore the definition applies just
as well to the verb of primitive languages that designates the metaphysical
differences of action (the aorist for action in fieri, the perfect for accomplished
action) as it does to the verb of modem language which designates the purely
temporal differences in action. It would be well to note the importance of the
linguistic category of aspect on this point (cf. Vendryes, Le Langage).
 LOGIC
56
and flux of movement (and not by the things which they
signify). . .
So, in accusing language of “ parcelling out reality
into inert scraps and of depriving things of movement,
the school of MM. Bergson and Le Roy not only mistakes
a simple condition of the mode of signification for a
condition of the signified thing, but entirely misunder¬
stands the true notion of language in considering only
the noun, and disregarding the verb.
*(e) The analysis of every enunciation reveals a subject
united to a predicate by a copula ; in other words, the
structure of an enunciation may always be reduced to
two terms united by a copula, as S. to Pr., but the Pr.
and C. may be united in the verb (“ I run ”) and the S.
and Pr. may be interchanged without affecting the truth
of the statement (“ some man is a liar,” “ some liar is a
man ”). Consequently the basic elements of every enun¬
ciation, considered simply in itself, are the verb (be it
merely a copula, or copula and predicate united in one
term) and the noun (subject or predicate). This is why
we say that the division of the enunciative term into noun
and verb is an essential one, whereas its division into S.,
Pr. and C. is an accidental division. However, the division
of the syllogistic term into S. and Pr. is essential, for in this
case the term and the proposition are considered as parts
of the reasoning.

3. The Subject and the Predicate

The syllo¬ 24. DIVISION OF THE TERM CONSIDERED AS PART OF ARGU¬
gistic term
is divided MENTATION. Considered as part of argumentation (the
into subject
and predi¬ syllogistic term), the term is the last element into which every
cate.
argumentation is necessarily resolved. It is not the function of
the argumentation, as such, to construct or state the truth
“ Peter is a man,” that is, to unite the term man to the term
Peter by means of the copula is. (This is the function of
the enunciation.) Argumentation as such draws or infers,
from the fact that (I) “ Man is mortal ” and (II) “ Peter
is a man,” the truth (III) “ Peter is mortal ” : it unites
Peter and mortal by means of man. Therefore the terms it
admits of formally as an argumentation are the three terms
 THE CONCEPT
57

Peter, mortal and man. “ Peter ” is the subject of the conclu¬

sion, “ mortal ” is the predicate of the conclusion, “ man,”
called the middle term, is the predicate of one of the premisses
and the subject of the other.
The copula (and the verb inasmuch as it contains the
copula) is not a syllogistic term ; it does not belong to
the syllogism formally, but only by presupposition, as a
part of the propositions of which the syllogism is composed.
The proposition itself, considered as part of argumentation
is resolved into two terms only : the subject and the
predicate.

4. Extension of the Subject-Term

25. DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT-TERM ACCORDING TO EXTEN¬
SION.1 As we have already seen (No. 18) the concept con¬
sidered as subject of a proposition and in relation to the logical
use we make of it as such, is divided into singular, particular
and universal or distributive.
The same is true of the term that signifies the concept The subject-
term is
thus considered. But it may happen that the extension of either singu¬
lar, parti¬
the subject-concept in relation to the predicate is not cular, univer¬
sal, or
expressly manifested by any oral sign, e.g., “ man is mortal,” indefinite.

“ man is untrustworthy.” In such a case the concept itself

taken as it is realized in singular things is in reality either
singular, or particular, or distributive, but the term does not
indicate which. Therefore we say that this term is indefinite.
Accordingly, taken as the subject of a proposition, the
term is divided according to extension into singular, particular,
distributive and indefinite.

'expressly rSingular ..... this man

manifesting
the extension (Particular . . . some man
Subject- of the subject— Common -
term - concept in re- (Distributive of Universal . every man
lation to the
predicate v
Indefinite (and occultly singular, particular or
. universal) ....... man

DIVISION OF THE SUBJECT-TERM ACCORDING TO EXTENSION

1 This division, being related to the term considered as subject, concerns

the syllogistic term treated in No. 24.
 58 LOGIC

C. THE PROPERTIES OF TERMS IN THE PROPOSITION

Language 26. language and thought. Everything directly con-

tbought but ceived or thought of by our intelligence, everything ol
supposing which we have a concept or “ mental word ” may be
amf without expressed or translated into language.1 But despite the
ing a sub- flexibility, the docility, the delicacy of any system of
stitute copy , . . . ... 1 j r:
for it. language-signs, this expression is always more or less den-
cient in relation to thought. The loftiest intellectual know¬
ledge, which reveals a world of consequences within a single
principle, must, so to speak, be scattered and diluted in
order to be orally expressed.
Indeed it would be absurd to expect material signs,
uttered one after the other, to duplicate or furnish a fac¬
simile of the vital and immanent act of thought. Nor is it
the purpose of language to furnish such a facsimile of
thought : its object is to permit the intelligence of the hearer
to think, by an active repetitive effort, what the intel¬
ligence of the speaker is thinking. From this point of view
human language performs its function perfectly. Granted
the interpretative effort and the intellectual activity of the
hearer, it is a perfect system of signs ; suppress this effort
and this activity and there remains but a radically insuffi¬
cient system of lifeless symbols.
In other words, language not only supposes an effort—
often how bitter, authors know but too well—on the part
of the one who expresses his thought, but also requires an
effort on the part of the listener : a beneficent effort that
keeps us from depending entirely on the sign and saves us
from falling into what Leibnitz called “ psittacism,” a
parrot-like use of language.
Nor would it be amiss to note in this connection that the
more life and intellectual quality a philosophy possesses the
more forcibly must that philosophy experience the distance
between language and thought, without for all that cowardly
forsaking all expression of the truth. Hence a twofold
necessity accrues to philosophy : it must acquire a mastery
1 Omne individuum ineffabile. Every individual taken in its individuality is
inexpressible, because we have no direct concept of the singular ; we know
it by our intelligence, but only indirectly, by reflecting on images (per con-
versionem ad phantasmata).
 THE CONCEPT
59
over language by means of a whole technical apparatus of
forms and verbal distinctions (terminology), and it must
unceasingly exact from the mind an act of internal vitality
such that words and formulae can never replace, for they
are there but to spur the mind to this act. All philosophy
that relies upon words, all over-facile philosophy, is a priori
a philosophy of lesser thought and consequently of lesser
truth.
Language, then, expresses or signifies as much of our
thought as is necessary in order that another intellect,
hearing the pronounced words, may present the same
thought to itself. The remainder is not necessarily, and
even should not be, expressed, lest it overburden and
infinitely complicate the winged signs of speech. This
unexpressed margin of thought, to be supplemented by
the intelligence of the hearer, is remarkably evinced by
the diverse properties that affect the term considered, not
by itself, but in the context of the proposition, as part of a pro¬
position. The ancient logicians made an exhaustive study
of these properties, a study that may seem irksome to in¬
attentive minds, but one that is most instructive from the
point of view which we have just indicated and absolutely
indispensable for anyone who would acquire the art of
reasoning. As Aristotle says, since we cannot bring the
things themselves into our discussions, we have to let words
appear for them and testify in their stead.1 But we shall
inevitably fall into a host of errors unless we observe that
not only may the same word have several different meanings
but also that the same word, even while having the same
meaning (for example, the one given in the dictionary) and
consequently even while signifying the same intelligible
nature, may, according to its use in the context, stand for
very different things.
We give here a few points of information about the
different properties of the term considered as part of the
proposition, the principal of which is the suppositio.
Since we are dealing with purely technical notions, it
seems preferable to keep the Latin names by which these
1 Aristotle, I Elench., I, 164a, 5 : “In disputationibus nos utimur vocabulis
loco rerum, quia ipsas res in medium afferre non possum us.”
 6o LOGIC

terms are signified, followed by an approximate

translation.1

Hence the rules concerning the suppositio of terms, which

we shall translate as their “substitutive value” (suppleance),
that is to say the manner in which a term takes the place of,
or becomes a substitute in discourse for, a thing. (Terminus
supponit pro re : the term stands for the thing.)
The 27. the suppositio. (1) When I say “man is a species
suppositio is
the substitu¬ of the genus animal,” “ Man is a masculine noun,” “ Peter
tion of a
term for a is a man,” the term “ man ” has the same signification in
thing ; this
substitution all three cases—viz., “ rational animal.” But may I there¬
is, consider¬
ing the fore say : “ Peter is a man, therefore he is a species of the
copula,
legitimate. genus animal or a masculine noun ” ? Obviously not.
For although the term “ man ” has the same signification
in these three statements, yet it stands for a different thing in
each case. We shall say then that the suppositio of a term,
which we may translate as its “ substitutive value,” is its
function in discourse—(the while its meaning remains the
same)—of taking the place of a thing. This substitution (of
term for thing) is, considering the copula, legitimate.2
Rule i. (2) What does the latter part of the definition mean
An affirma¬
tive is false in saying “ this substitution is, considering the copula,
if its subject
does not legitimate ” ? It does not mean : the substitution of
stand for
anything. the term for the thing results in a true proposition. For
example, if I say : “ my friend Peter is vegetal,” the term
“ my friend Peter ” “ stands for something ” {supponit, has
a substitutive value), since there really exists a thing to
which this term applies considering the present time signified
by the copula is : for I can at the present moment indicate
by thought something of which I can truthfully say :
this is my friend Peter. But, on the contrary, if I say : “ Napo-
Although the logical properties considered here are easier to study in
relation to the oral term, they belong just as much to the concept as they do to
the term which is the material expression of the concept. A concept presents
a nature or essence to the mind (signiftcatio), but furthermore, when con-
considered as part of the proposition that affirms or denies the existence of a
certain thing with a certain predicate, it is a mental substitute for the subjects
in which this nature is realized (suppositio). J
2 Acceptio termini pro aliquo de quo verificatur juxta exigentiam copulae. In his
U-eatise De Suppositiombus, St. Vincent Ferrier treats the theory of the sub-
positw in a very remarkable and personal manner, but perhaps even too nar-
rr -Tt!d SyStematluCa7‘ ,We have Preferred to draw upon the works of John
of St. Thomas—with a little retouching of our own. J
 THE CONCEPT 6l
Icon I. will be emperor,” the term Napoleon I. does not
“ stand for anything ” (non supponit) because, considering
the copula will be (future time), there is nothing I can desig¬
nate as Napoleon I. The same is true if I say “ Adam is
doing penance ” or “ Antichrist was a liar.” So in saying
that “ the suppositio is the property of a term by which it
stands for, or takes the place of, a thing in discourse, this
substitution being legitimate considering the copula,” we
do not mean that this substitution is true in the nature of
things, but only that : the sort of existence—actual (past,
present or future), possible or “imaginary”1—denoted
by the copula permits this substitution. This is so because,
as we saw above (No. 23), the verb to be always signifies
existence (real or ideal) even when it is used simply as a
copula. Accordingly, before verifying the conformity of
predicate to subject, we must ascertain whether the subject
itself exists in the manner required by the copula.
Hence the rule : every proposition whose subject does not stand
for anything is false if it is affirmative. (This rule does not
apply to negative propositions, for such a proposition may
be true even if.its subject does not stand for anything. The
statement “ Richelieu is not a member of the Chamber of
Deputies ” is true, by the very fact that Richelieu does not
exist.)
(a) In propositions concerning pure essences (eternal
truth, attributing an essential predicate to the subject), the
subject-term always stands for something, for in this
instance the copula denotes possible existence only, and is
thus outside of time, absoluta a tempore. If I say “ the
triangle has such and such a property,” I can and always
shall be able to show by thought a thing (an essence)
in the order of possibles of which I may truthfully affirm
“ this is a triangle.” Only when the predicate is acci¬
dental to the subject, as in “ some man runs,” “ Napoleon
was emperor,” is there any reason for inquiring whether
or not the subject of the (affirmative) proposition stands
for something, for in this case the copula denotes existence
in act—existence in time.
1 Imaginary existence applies to beings of reason that cannot exist except in
the mind (see above, No. 9a).
62 LOGIC

(b) Distinguish carefully between the “ signification ”

and the “ suppositio” of terms.1 The signification relates to
that from which the giving of the name springs {id a quo im-
ponitur nomen), that is, to the form or nature which it
represents to the mind {qualitas nominis). The “ sup¬
positio ” of a word relates to that to which the name is given
{id cui imponitur nomen), that is, to the things or subjects
{substantia nominis) to which the intelligence applies, in
this way or that, the word itself in a proposition in order that
the word may act as a substitute for the thing to which
the intelligence applies certain predicates. In other
words, the “ signification ” (substitutio repraesentiva pro re)
relates to the natures that are the proper object of the first
operation of the mind, whereas the “ suppositio ” (sub¬
stitutio applicativa) relates to the subjects in which these
natures are realized and which the second operation of
the mind signifies as existing with such and such predicates.
When I say : “ Man is social,” the word “ man ” not
only represents (renders present to my mind) human
nature (considered in an abstract universal subject),
but it also takes the place for .me of the extra-mental
thing, of the individuals to which sociability is attributed
by the copula is.

(3) Before determining what the “ substitutive value ”

(the suppositio) of a term may be, we must determine whether
there is any substitution. We must also ascertain to what kind of
existence, real or ideal,2 that substitution is related. For instance, I
should be guilty of very poor reasoning should I attempt to
prove the existence of a chimera by the following argument :

(I) That which is an animal is,

(II) But the chimera is an animal,
(III) Therefore the chimera is.

1 Cf. St. Thomas in III Sent., disf. VI, q. i, a. 3 ; John of St. Thomas,
Logica, ia Pars, Sum., p. 22.
2 Wc may understand ideal existence as standing in contradictory opposi¬
tion to actual existence ; that is, we are defining it simply as existence that is
not actual (whether it be possible or “ imaginary ”). Had it been thus under¬
stood in the table in No. ga, the groups I, II, and III would have been bracketed
together, and “ real existence ” would have referred exclusively to group IV,
and would thus have designated actual existence as simultaneously opposed
to both possible and “ imaginary ” existence.
 THE CONCEPT 63
For I play on the double meaning of is in proposition I :
chimera being taken (substituting, supponens) in relation to
to ideal existence in proposition II (for the chimera exists
as an animal in the mind alone), and in relation to real
existence in proposition III. It was in this way that the ancient
sophists pretended to demonstrate that non-being is,
because it is non-being.
It is evident that if the antecedent (the minor in a syl¬
logism) 1 has a suppositio taken solely in relation to ideal
Rule II.
existence (if it is a purely “ essential ” suppositio as we would A sequence
is invalid if
say nowadays) then the conclusion cannot have a sup¬ the mode of
existence in
positio taken in relation to real existence, an “ existential ” relation to
which the
suppositio. My reasoning would be defective indeed were I suppositio is
understood
to infer from the propositions “ Every centaur is half-man, varies from
the ante¬
half-horse,” “ but a centaur is a fabulous being ” that cedent to the
consequent.
“ there really exists a fabulous being that is half-man, half¬
horse.” The proper conclusion would be : “ therefore
some fabulous being is half-man, half-horse ” (in ideal
existence). Hence the rule :

For a sequence to be valid the mode of existence in relation

to which the suppositio is understood must not vary from ante¬
cedent to consequent.

The “ ontological ” argument by which Descartes

sought to prove the existence of God—starting with and
proceeding from the idea of a perfect being (and not from
some existing thing), violates this rule in passing from
ideal to real existence.

(I) The perfect being exists necessarily,

(II) But God is the perfect being,
(III) Therefore God exists necessarily.

» In syllogisms of the third figure (see below No. 78) it may happen that
although the Minor considered by itself has a purely “ essential suppositio, the
suppositio of the Conclusion is “ existential.” Such is the case in the following
example (in Disamis) :
“ Some angel is damned
But every angel is a pure spirit, „
Therefore some pure spirit is damned.
But in this syllogism the existential suppositio of the Major is communicated to
the Minor taken as Minor, that is, thought of as subordinate to the Major.
 64 LOGIC

Proposition I results necessarily from the idea of a

perfect being if the word “ exists ” relates to ideal existence,
but not if it relates to real existence. This proposition
simply means that among the constitutive notes of the
object of thought I call “ perfect being 55 is the object
of thought I call “ necessary existence ” whether or not
this being really exists (and without my knowing whether
or not this represented existence is exercised). Likewise
in proposition II, the substitutive value of the subject
(God) relates to ideal existence. (Descartes did not prove
that God really exists as perfect being, on the contrary, he
began with the notion of God, with the principle that God
exists ideally in our thought as perfect being). But in
proposition III the substitutive value of this same subject
relates to real existence, and Descartes concludes that
God necessarily exists in real being. His premisses,
however, justify such a conclusion in the ideal realm
only; in other words, his argument proves nothing beyond
the fact that God exists necessarily, if He exists.

(4) Now let us examine the different “ substitutive

values ” a term may have in a proposition.
A. In order to distinguish different substitutive values
let us first consider the term as subject of a proposition. As we
shall presently see, its substitutive value in this instance is
determined by the signification of the predicate.
1 For example in the propositions :

suppositio “ man is a noun of one syllable,”

matenahs. . , ' ’
lamb is a four-letter word.”

The term “ man ” or “ lamb ” stands for itself, for the oral
or written sign itself: its substitutive value is material,
suppositio materialis. More often, however, the term stands
for the thing which it signifies: its substitutive value is
formal.
2 In the latter case, if I say

Suppositio
The Lamb was offered up for the sins of the world,”
impropria. the term ‘ Lamb ” stands for the thing it signifies only
improperly or metaphorically : the substitutive value of
the term is improper, suppositio impropria. If, on the contrary,
 THE CONCEPT 65

the term stands for the thing it signifies in the proper sense,
its substitutive value is said to be proper.
3 For example in propositions such as :
The vertebrate is a branch of zoology,” or
“ The lamb is a species of the genus animal,” propositions
in which the predicate is a logical being with the form of
universality, the term “ vertebrate ” or “ lamb ” stands for
a certain nature which it signifies without passing to the
Suppositio
individuals who have this nature (for I cannot say : Fido simplex and
Suppositio
is a vertebrate, therefore Fido is a branch of zoology). personalis.
In other words, the term stands for the thing it signifies
primarily and immediately (primo et immediate, sen formaliter)
with a precision such that it does not pass on to the thing it
signifies secondarily (materialiter) ; (for a common term
signifies first and immediately a universal nature, and
signifies secondly and mediately the individuals in which
this nature is actualized).1 In this case the substitutive
value is simple, suppositio simplex.2
However, the term may stand simultaneously for the
thing it signifies immediately and for the thing it signifies
materially and mediately ; that is, it may also stand for the
individual subjects or “ persons ” in which is actualized
the universal nature that it primarily signifies. In this case
the term has, so to speak, a double substitutive value which
is said to be real or personal, suppositio personalis.
Suppositio
4 In the latter case the substitutive value may be either singularis
singular (suppositio singulars) : “ The man ran away at and
Suppositio
communis.
once,” “ The lamb will be sacrificed to-morrow,” or

common (suppositio communis).

5 The latter may in turn be either

Suppositio
particular determinate (suppositio determinate, seu dis- disjunctiva,
Suppositio
junctiva) when the term stands for only a certain determinate disjuncta.

1 See above No. 20 a.

2 In the case of a singular term, which signifies the individual immediately
and the nature mediately, the relation is inverse. There is suppositio simplex
when the term stands for the individual subject without exercising its secondary
signification, that is, without standing for the universal nature, as in all
propositions wherein the predicate is a logical being with the form of singularity
(incommunicable to many). For example, if I say : “ Peter is an individual,
that he is “ something incommunicable to many contained in the species
man,” I cannot conclude by induction that man is an individual.
 66 LOGIC

few of the things which it signifies : “ Some man is a liar ”x

or particular indeterminate (suppositio disjuncta) when the
term stands for some of the things which it signifies, but
leaves them indistinct, takes them as indeterminate or confused
“ Some instrument is needed to make music.”
Suppositio
copulata.
or collective (.suppositio copulata) when the term stands for
the things it signifies taken collectively, or as a whole : “ The
Apostles were twelve,” “ The Romans were an imperialistic
people.”
or universal or distributed (suppositio distributa) when the
term stands for each and every one of the things it signifies
(pro omnibus et singulis significatis) : “ Man is mortal,” “ Every
man is mortal.” In this case the extension of the term sig¬
nifying a universal nature (e.g., “ man ”) is in no way
restricted.

THE SUBSTITUTIVE VALUE OF THE TERM

Completa : “ Every man is

mortal ”
Incompleta : “ Every animal
Distributa- Conftisa (the
was in the Ark” l
Exceptiva : “ Every man is | things for
born in sin ” J which the
'term stands
Copulata : “ The Apostles were -\ are considered
twelve 9 9 I indeterminately)
fusa
Disjuncta : “ Some tool is neces- >
' Tantum
sary in order to [
work ” J
Disjunctiva: “ Some man is a liar.”
Determinata.
Singulars : “ The man ran away,” “ Peter is seated.”
Simplex : “ Man is a species of the genus Animal.”
Impropria : “ The Lamb was offered up for the sins of the world.”
Materialis : “ Man is a noun of one syllable.”

Suppositio
completa, 6 Universal or distributed substitution may be either
incompleta,
cxceptiva. complete, when the term stands for all the individual subjects
to which its signification extends (pro singulis generum) :
“ man is mortal,” “ every animal is sentient.”

1 “ Some manJs.f ” The S. in this proposition first and immediately

signifies an individual at large—an indeterminate individual (individuum
vagurn) with human nature, and secondly or mediately signifies certain determinate
individuals with this nature—this man, or that man, is a liar.
 THE CONCEPT 67

or incomplete, when the term stands only for all the kinds
of subjects to which its signification extends (pro generis
singulorum) : “ Every animal was in Noah’s ark ” (that is,
each species of animal). “ God summoned every animal
before Adam.”
or exceptive : “ every man that is merely man is born in sin ”
(exception being made for the Mother of God), “ every man
is fallible ” (except the Pope speaking as Doctor of the
Universal Church).

Descensus
The ancient logicians called the legitimate progression et
A scensus.
from a common term to the inferior or singular concepts
it contains, or from inferior terms to the common concept
which contains them, the descensus and ascensus of terms.
This progression constitutes a true inference in the case
of the particular-determinate (suppositio disjunctiva) or universal
(suppositio distributa) substitutive value of a term. In the
first instance (.suppositio disjunctiva) the descensus has the
following form : “ some man is a liar, therefore either
this man is a liar, or else this one is a liar, or else this
other one is a liar, etc.,” “ some body is sentient, therefore
either this body is sentient, or else this one is sentient,
or else this one (this animal for example) is sentient

{descensus disjunctions). . . .” In the second case {sup¬

positio distributa) the descensus has this form : “ Every
man is mortal, therefore this man is mortal and this
man is mortal, and this other man is mortal, etc.,” “ all
corporeal substance is destructible, therefore non-living
bodies are destructible, and vegetables are destructible,
and animals are destructible {descensus copulations).” In
both cases we pass from a more universal proposition to
a series of less universal propositions of which some
{descensus disjunctions) or all (descensus copulations) should be
true.
If the substitutive value in question is collective {sup¬
positio copulata) or particular-indeterminate {suppositio dis-
juncta) the term is said to be “ immobile ” because it does
not admit of a descensus or ascensus that resolves the truth
that was stated about the term itself into other less
universal or more universal truths. The descensus copulatus
 68 LOGIC

legitimately corresponding to the suppositio copulata has

the following form : “ The Apostles were twelve,’
therefore “ Peter and Paul and John and James, etc.
(taken together and as subject of a single proposition) were
twelve.” The descensus disjunctus corresponding to the
suppositio disjuncta has the following form : “ some
instrument is needed in order to make music, therefore a
piano, or a violin, or a flute or, etc. (taken together and
as subject of a single proposition) is needed to make music.”
In neither of these cases is there any inference from a more
universal to a less universal proposition.
We shall meet with the notion of “ the ascensus and
descensus under a common term or concept ” again in dealing
with induction.

Thus the substitutive value of a particular term may be

determinate (disjunctiva), or indeterminate (disjuncta). In the
former case it stands for determinate subjects, so that the
truth stated about the term itself may be applied to each
one of these subjects considered individually. In the latter
case, it stands for a vague and indeterminate subject con¬
sidered as a whole, so that the truth stated about the term
cannot be applied to individual determinate subjects.
B. The predicate of an affirmative proposition belongs to
the latter class : its substitutive value is particular indeter¬
minate (suppositio disjuncta).
The substi¬ 1 Its substitutive value is particular : for example in
tutive value
cf the Pr. of the proposition : “ every man is an animal ” the term
a proposi¬
tion:
(Suppositio
animal is not taken as communicable to all the individuals
disjuncta.)
particular
contained under it, it stands only for an individuum vagum
indeter¬
minate.
with animal nature ; for there are animals that are not
men.1
2 Its substitutive value is particular indeterminate; for
example, if I say “ Every sentient being is an animal ”
obviously I cannot conclude by descending to the particulars

1 Convertible propositions (see below No. 52, $2, and No. 83) are also subject
to this law. “ Every man is rational.” The concept rational has the same
extension as the concept man ; but as predicate, that is, as attributed to the
universal subject man and to the individuals contained under it, it is not taken
universally. It is not taken as communicable to the subject according to all the
singulars contained therein, but only according to a certain individual and
indeterminate restriction. For we cannot say : “ each man is all rationality.”
 THE CONCEPT
69
contained under the term animal that “ therefore every
sentient being is this animal (man)” or “ therefore every
sentient being is that animal (beast) •” ; I may only say :
“ therefore every sentient being is either man or beast”
In the same way, if I say “ Every musical performance
requires an instrument ” I cannot conclude “ therefore every
musical performance requires a piano, or every musical
performance requires a flute, etc.”—every one of these
statements would be false. I may only say : “ Every musical
performance requires either a piano or a flute or, etc.”

That is why the subject has a particular indeterminate

substitutive value (suppositio disjuncta) in propositions
such as “ some instrument is necessary to produce music,”
“ workmen are needed to build a house,” “ the animal
alone has the power of spontaneous motion.” 1 We cannot
particularize immediately under the common term
“ workmen ” and say “ therefore the workman Peter is
needed to build a house, or the workman Paul is needed
to build a house, or the workman John . . . etc.” (for
no particular workman is needed), nor can we specify
under the common term “ animal ” and say “ therefore
man alone has the power of spontaneous motion,” or
“ the beast alone has the power of spontaneous motion,”
we must simply say, “ therefore man and beast alone
have the power of spontaneous motion.”
Whence two rules to remember :

Rule III.
In every affirmative proposition, the substitutive value In every
affirmative,
of the PREDICATE IS PARTICULAR INDETERMINATE (sup- proposition
the Pr. is
positio disjuncta). taken par¬
ticularly.
Counter to this, in every negative proposition the
Rule IV.
substitutive value of the predicate is universal (sup¬ In every
negative
positio distributa). proposition
the Pr. is
taken univer¬
For example in the proposition, “ man is not a pure spirit ” sally.

the term “ pure spirit ” is taken as communicable to all the

singulars contained thereunder ; no pure spirit is a man.

1 Such propositions do imply or presuppose some universal affirmative

proposition wherein their subject has the role of predicate. Cf. John of St.
Thomas, Log., I, P., Sum., lib. II, cap. XII.
 70 LOGIC

These two rules are used a great deal in the theory of the
syllogism.
Rule V. As for the subject, as we have already said, its
The S. stand*
for the thing substitutive value is always determined by the signification
according to
the needs of
the Pr.
of the predicate.
(1Subjectum supponit juxta exigentiam Praedicati, talia sunt sub-
jecta qualia permittuntur a suis praedicatis.)
This is the fundamental rule in regard to the suppositio :

S. Pr.
“ The Apostles were men ”—suppositio distributa
(universal}.
“ The Apostles were twelve ”—suppositio copulata
(collective).
“ Apostles were necessary to preach the Gospel to
the world ”—suppositio disjuncta (particular indeter¬
minate) .
“ Apostles were present at Mount Tabor ”—sup¬
positio disjunctiva, (particular determinate).
Suppositio
naturalis et C. The “ real ” or “ personal ” substitutive value of a
suppositio
occidentals. term {suppositio personalis) may be divided from another
aspect besides the one noted above in 4—viz., in relation
to the verb or copula. From this point of view it is either
essential {suppositio naturalis), or accidental {suppositio acci¬
dentalis). In the first case, e.g., “man is rational” the

subject-term stands for something to which the predicate

belongs intrinsically and essentially; consequently its sub¬
stitutive value is universal (if it is a common term). In the
second case, e.g., “ man is a liar,” the term stands for some¬
thing to which the predicate belongs accidentally. Therefore
its substitutive value is particular determinate {suppositio dis¬
junctiva), if the term is neither taken collectively nor ren¬
dered indeterminate {suppositio disjuncta) by any particular
modifying sign. Hence the rule :
Rule VI.
The substi¬ When the subject of a proposition is not modified by
tutive value
of an un¬ any sign its substitutive value is universal in necessary
modified
subject is matter, particular determinate in contingent matter.
universal in
necessary
matter, Thus a proposition such as : “ the animals are able to feel ”
 THE CONCEPT
71
particular in
(a proposition in the scientific order) is equivalent to a contingent
matter.
universal proposition ; a proposition such as “ the animals
listened to the preaching of Anthony of Padua ” (a proposi¬
tion in the historical order) is equivalent to a particular
proposition.
Furthermore, as we saw above, when the subject has a
suppositio naturalis, the copula of itself signifies only the
relation of predicate to subject in possible existence, so
that the subject need not exist in order that the affirma¬
tive proposition be true. “ Every animal is sentient ”
would be a true statement, even if no animal existed on
earth.
On the contrary, when the subject has a suppositio
accidentalis, the copula of itself denotes actual existence,
for since the predicate is not of the subject’s essence, it
is received accidentally in a subject presupposed as
existing. Consequently the subject must exist (in the
time designated by the copula) in order that the
proposition be true. “ Peter runs ” ; if Peter does not exist,
this proposition is false. Similarly, “ Racine is writing
Iphigenia ” and “ Charlemagne will be crowned ” are
false propositions.1
D. Therefore—every> sequence is invalid in which the genus Rule VII.
In a valid
of the suppositio of a term changes from one proposition to sequence the
genus of the
another.2 For example : suppositio
must not
vary.
The logical categories were created by Aristotle,
But quantity is a logical category,
Therefore quantity was created by Aristotle.

Likewise it would be faulty reasoning in Theology to

say : “ The Father is God, the Son is God, therefore the
Son is the Father.” For the suppositio of the term “ God ”
changed here from one premise to the other. In the Major
it stood for the divine essence subsisting in the person of the Father—

1 See below No. 84.

2 We say the genus of the suppositio, because the species may vary : thus a
particular may be inferred from a proposition whose subject has a universal
substitutive value (every man is mortal, therefore some man is mortal).
But were we to pass from one genus of suppositio to another (for example,
from suppositio simplex to a suppositio personalis) the sequence would be invalid.
The same is true when, as cited in the second example in the text, a single
term with a suppositio personalis stands for two different subjects.
72 LOGIC

“ The Father is God (the Father) ” ; in the Minor it stood

for the divine essence subsisting in the person of the Son The
Son is God (the Son).”
Drill.

(1) In the following examples indicate the suppositio

of the underlined terms (as to mode of existence and
as to their subjects) :
The Romans were an imperialistic people.
A square circle is impossible to conceive.
Every creature is finite.
Nebuchadnezzar is not in Paris.
Every metal is a heat-conductor.
The Lion of Judah has conquered.
Philosophers are arrogant.
Some angel is damned.
In this proposition angel is subject of the predicate
damned.
Every man is fallible.
Man is rational.
I can find no rhyme for epidermis.
All the nations were at this congress.
The serpent betrayed the woman.
I need some enemy to teach me my faults.
Every created essence is distinct from existence.
This man is wicked.
No circle is square.
Napoleon I. will win the battle of Austerlitz.
Napoleon I. won the battle of Waterloo.
Some triangle is isosceles.
Romans were needed to build this empire.
Every centaur is half-man, half-horse.
The Romans destroyed Carthage.
Pious has two syllables.
All the soldiers are French.
The Romans were men.

(2) Find some examples of the suppositio in relation to

possible existence, and in relation to ideal existence.
Find examples corresponding to each suppositio in
the table in No. 27 (3), A. 5.
 THE CONCEPT
73

*28. OTHER LOGICAL PROPERTIES OF THE TERM.

Ampliatio
I. The ampliatio (amplification, enlargement) extends or or
Amplifica¬
broadens a term’s substitutive value. For instance, the term tion.
man ” is broader in this proposition : “ every man (as a
possible essence) is fallible ” than it is in the proposition :
“ every man (actually existing) is fallible ” (ampliatio ad esse
possibile). Similarly this term is broader in the proposition
“ every man is unhappy on this earth ” than in “ the
poor man is unhappy on this earth ” (ampliatio ad plura
supposita).
II. The restrictio (restriction), on the contrary, restricts Restrictio.

the substitutive value of a term. In the proposition “ every

(actually existing) man is fallible,” “ the poor man is
unhappy,” “ the men of this country are liars ” the term
man has a more restricted substitutive value than it has in
the propositions : “ every man (as a possible essence) is
fallible.” “ Man is unhappy on this earth,” “ men are liars.”
Likewise, in saying, for example, “ everyone knows it, the
expression “ everyone,” which stands for all the people of
a certain country or a certain category, is employed with
restriction.

Rule. In order to proceed legitimately from the broad

to the less broad in an affirmative proposition (ab amplo
ad non amplum, sive a non restricto ad restrictum) 1. The
broader term must be universal (distributive). 2. The less
broad subject must be posited as existing : I cannot say :
“ every man is rational, therefore Napoleon I. is rational,”
for Napoleon I. does not actually exist. I should say :
“ every man is rational (Napoleon I. existed), therefore
Napoleon I. was rational.”

Alienatio
III. Alienatio transfers the substitutive value of a term or
from proper to improper or metaphorical : this transfer transfer.

may occur either in the S. on account of the Pr. or in the

Pr. on account of the S.
The Apostle is carved in stone.
This philosopher is an ass.
This man is a tiger.
The parrot is a mast rigged on the main-top.
 74 LOGIC

Diminutio
or
IV. By diminutio (diminution) the term is made to stand
Diminution.
for a lesser (less extended) subject than it would stand for
if taken by itself.
“ Every argument is good in so far as it is true.”
Appellatio
or V. The appellatio (reimposition) clothes the subject
Reimposi¬
tion. designated by the term with a determination other than
the one which the term itself signifies. In other words, it
imposes upon this term a formality that is properly sig¬
nified by another, and thus causes it to stand for a thing
taken from a determinate point of view which it does not
signify when considered by itself.
Peter is a heavy eater.
The subject Peter is said to be heavy here, as or under
the formality of an eater. Before being attributed to the
subject Peter the term heavy (terminus appellans) “ calls down ”
or “ reimposes ” upon him the determination or formality
signified by the term eater: the term heavy is not absolutely
applicable to Peter, but only in relation to the faculty of
eating, by means of the determination signified by the term
eater.

(a) Be careful not to confuse the appellatio with the

simple attribution (praedicatio) of a predicate to a subject.
In propositions such as: “ this poet is an aviator,” or “ the
painter plays the violinf the predicate is simply attributed
to the subject. In order for there to be appellatio, the
subject must be considered not only as subject, but as
endowed with a certain determination by means of which
it receives the predicate : “ Peter is a heavy eater,”
“ Alexander the Great was a little man ” (small in stature),
“ this poet is sublime as an aviator,” “ the painter is
unrivalled on the violin.”
(b) Such terms as to know, to love, etc., that signify an
interior act of the soul, cause “ appellatio ” in their objects,
and clothe them with the exact determination or the
proper formality supposed by the act in question. For
these objects are said to be known, loved, etc., under the
exact aspect from which they are attained.” “ I love my
neighbour ”—as such, and I love him thus even if he is
my country’s enemy (but not as the enemy of my country).
 THE CONCEPT
75

The imprudent desire the pleasures that will destroy

them/’ that is, they want them as pleasures not as evil
(although they know them to be evil).
“ This historian is well acquainted with Plato ”—he
knows him as a philosopher and as the author of the
Dialogues—but he did not converse with him at the
Academy.
It was by a fallacious use of the appellatio that the
sophists fabricated the sophism of the veiled man. “ Do you
see that veiled man ? ” the sophist would ask.—“ Yes, I
see him.” “ But one cannot see what is hidden under a
veil ? ”—“ Naturally not.” “ Well then you are saying
that you see this man and that you do not see him,
therefore you are contradicting yourself. ...” Obviously
to say “ I see this veiled man ” means that one sees him
as a visual object, that is, as an object covered by a veil, not
as an object in itself.

This brief survey of the diverse properties of the term in

the proposition is instructive in several respects. For if we
have really understood that a single term may stand for
different things in discourse, even while it keeps the same
signification (corresponds to the same concept, and to the
same word in the dictionary)—if we have really under¬
stood this—then we shall also understand why the necessity
of “ distinguishing,” i.e., making distinctions, dominates all
human discussions. We shall comprehend also why this
necessity arises from the specific character of our intel¬
ligence : not only because the same word may signify
different concepts, but also because words being the material
tools, and concepts the immaterial tools, of rational activity
the reason may put the same concept and the same word with its
signification unchanged to different uses. We shall also
understand how useless it would be to attempt to substi¬
tute for the Logic of ideas or of concepts, which always supposes
the activity of the mind using concepts and words as tools,
a logic of written or oral signs, so perfect as to dispense with
thought and be sufficient unto itself (the universal charac¬
teristic of Leibnitz—modern Logistics). Of course, a system
of signs more perfect and more rigid than ordinary language
76 LOGIC

may be conceived ; but, with the exception of certain

limited domains, such as that of algebra, we shall never
succeed in completely suppressing the margin of inde¬
termination that subsists around the oral or written sign,
and attests to the transcendence of thought over its material
symbols.
Finally, from another point of view, if we understand
that the same word stands for such and such a thing, and
has such and such a value for thought, depending upon the
structure of the proposition of which it is a part, we have
already laid hold of an important truth, namely that :
the proposition is not a mere juxtaposition of words con¬
sidered as things, but forms a true unity, and is a true whole
composed of words taken as parts.

SECTION 4. THE DEFINITION

29. notion of the definition—(Definition of the thing).

When we express a thought orally we say or utter it extern¬
ally by means of a vocal sign (a word). When we conceive
a thing, we utter it intellectually, we “ say ” 1 it within
ourselves by means of an immaterial sign (an idea or mental
concept), in other words we form a sign within us, an imma¬
terial likeness in which our mind sees this thing.
But in order for the mind to work to advantage, is it
enough to say a thing in brief to express it in a concept ?
Does it suffice to say “ man ” in thinking of what Peter is,
or to say “ triangle ” in thinking of this geometric figure ?
If I really want to know anything whatsoever about this
geometric figure, or about Peter’s nature, must I not first
determine their precise limits, in order to avoid the risk of
attributing the properties of a circle or of a square to the
triangle, or of attributing to human nature what is proper
to the nature of oxen or of angels. Is it not likewise neces-

1 The term “ say ” is evidently used here only by analogy. It refers neither
to the act of really uttering something aloud, nor to the act of uttering it
imaginatively within us, as we do when we talk to ourselves without moving
our lips—but relates to the purely immaterial act of thinking (cf. above No. 3).
It is a law of the mind that we designate spiritual things analogically by means
of words that primarily signify sensible things.
 THE CONCEPT 77

sary to discern in so far as it is possible, the elements of their

intelligible structure so that I may account for their pro¬
perties ? Again, in order to determine the limits of a nature
and to discern its intelligible elements, must we not explain
or develop its concept into a complexus of several concepts
or ideas, must we not tell at length what the concept said
in brief, and not merely say “ man ” but “ rational animal,”
not simply “ triangle ” but “ three-sided polygon ” ? For
every nature presents several intelligible aspects to the mind,
to each of which there corresponds an idea within us.
Furthermore, there is necessarily a certain group of
intelligible aspects which it alone can present, otherwise it
would not be this or that, but might be anything.
First notion
Therefore we may “ say ” it to ourselves (i.e., think it) as of a
definition:
having an intelligible structure, and we may form an a complex
term that
immaterial likeness of it within us, by a group of two or makes
known what
more concepts that manifest it or make it known by dis¬ an objective
concept or
tinguishing it from all others. nature is
(definition of
Thus our knowledge is not constituted of concepts left a thing,
quid rei).
in the bud, that is, in the undeveloped state in which they
are as they issue from abstraction. It requires that these
concepts unfold, bloom, and so develop that they may
become capable of articulation and use by the mind. The
complex concept formed by the intelligence explicitly to mani¬
fest the nature presented by an incomplex concept, or the
complex term 1 that expresses this complex concept externally
and places it in language, is the
DEFINITION

of this nature. We must be careful not to confuse the

definition itself with the judgment or proposition that
attributes it to a subject. The definition of a man, for example,
is the complex term :
rational animal
and not the proposition :
man is a rational animal.

1 Strictly speaking, we should use locution or discourse (oratio) here, rather

than complex term. But since the complex term coincides materially with the
word imperfect discourse, and really means the same thing, its present use will
not result in any confusion.
78 LOGIC

It is clear that the application of the definition to the thing

defined (this application being accomplished by the proposi¬
tion) does not constitute the definition, but presupposes it.

(a) Evidently then definition stands related to the

first operation of the mind, which prepares the materials
for the proposition. Undoubtedly it is a logical work, a
composite of concepts ; but it does not form a whole
or a finished structure, it is only a part, a member.1
Its logical fabrication depends therefore not on the second
operation of the mind but on the first, on the activity
of simple apprehension. This does not mean that the
act of forming a definition takes place independently of the
act of forming a proposition, nor that it follows imme¬
diately in the order of time upon the act of abstracting.
We only think “ rational animal ” or “ featherless biped ”
in order to think and at the same time as we think :
“ Man is this or that.” Furthermore, in order to define
something, a whole preliminary effort at intellectual
elaboration through comparisons, judgments and reason¬
ings, is usually necessary. But just as the part of this
effort that deals with the abstraction of the concept
“ man ” depends upon simple apprehension, so does the
part that relates to the assembling of concept groups,
such as “ rational animal ” or “ featherless biped ”
depend upon this act. We may add that the definition
necessarily precedes demonstration, for every demonstrative
syllogism is based precisely upon the real, or at least
nominal, definition of the thing.
As we shall see (Nos. 35, 36) the second operation of
the mind begins by bringing two terms together and
comparing them, and ends in the act of judgment
properly so-called. Likewise in the first operation of the
mind which is made up of two different acts : the act
of forming a concept, and the act of forming a definition,
the formation of concepts is only, so to speak, the first
halting place, or phase, of mental activity. Thus simple
apprehension should be considered as ordained to the
definition as to its most evolved and perfect product,
1 See above, No. 7.
 THE CONCEPT 79

the first operation of the mind itself being ordained to

the judgment, and the latter in turn to the reasoning.
Such is the unvarying teaching of St. Thomas 1 ; the
acts of the mind are not isolated one from the other, we
must beware of pigeon-holing them, of shutting them up
in little compartments to work for themselves alone. They
are vital and synergetic, they converge dynamically
towards one end ... the knowledge of things (which the
Logician considers under its highest form, science).
(b) We may also see, from what has been said, that it
is the definition that gives the concept the explicit expres¬
sion required by science. That is why it takes its place
with division and argumentation, as an “ instrument of
knowledge ” (modus sciendi) by which “ unknown [or at
least imperfectly known] things are made known to us.”
(c) Since the definition makes known by means of
several concepts an object of thought that a single concept
presented to the mind, and since these concepts are
themselves defined by means of other concepts, must not
the mind be finally forced to stop in the face of primitive
concepts which cannot properly be defined ? We shall
prove this to be the case in Major Logic.

30. definition of the name. Before inquiring into what a This notion
may be
extended
thing is, for instance what man is, and expressing it in a and applied
to the word
definition, we must agree on the meaning of the word by itself
which we designate this thing, and which takes its place in (definition of
the name,
quid
discussion. Let us say that the locution or the complex nominis).
concept that makes known the signification of a name, is
also a definition—and thus extend the meaning of this word.
In this extended or derived sense the definition is said to be
a nominal definition, a definition of the name. By contrast we
may call the definition in the sense of the word of which we

1 See for example : de Verit., q. i, a. 3 ; q. 14, a. 1 ; Sum. theol., I-II, q. 90,

a. 1, ad 2 ; I, q. 17, a. 3 ; in III de Anima, lect. 11 ; Quod lib. v, a. 1 ; Comment
in Joann, cap. I, lect. 1, No. 1. “ Intellects autem duo format, secundum
duas ejus operationes ; nam secundum operationem suam, quae dicitur
indivisibilium intelligentia, format definitionem 5 secundum vero operationem
suam, qua componit et dividit, format enunciationem, vel aliquid hujusmodi.
Et ideo illud sic formatum et expressum per operationem intellects vel
definientis vel enunciantis, exteriori voce significatur. Unde dicit Philos¬
ophic quod ratio, quam significat nomen, est definitio.” Cf. above, No. 3.
 8o LOGIC

have hitherto been speaking, the definition of the thing, or

“ real ” definition (realis, that is, rei).
The defini¬ 31. definition of the definition. Now we may define
tion is de¬
fined as: the definition . . .
oratw
naturam rei
aut termini The definition is a complex concept or locution that sets
significa-
tionem forth what a thing is or what a name signifies.
exponens.
In saying “ complex concept ” we consider the mental
definition ; in saying locution (or complex term) we
consider the spoken definition.

SECTION 5. DIVISION

32. notion of division. Is the definition the only means

we have of explicitly manifesting what an incomplex
concept presents to the mind ? The definition “ rational
animal ” shows us the constitutive aspects or essential parts
of the objective concept “ man.” It distinctly reveals to us
what man is. But has not this concept an extent (a sort of
quantity) which is as yet but confusedly perceived, and
which we should try to know distinctly ? To advance in
the knowledge of man or of triangle, should we not discern
that there are white, black, and yellow men, . . . right-angle,
isosceles, and equilateral triangles . . . ? or, from other
Division of
a nature, or
aspects, that a triangle has three sides and three angles, that
of the object
of a concept,
man has a body and soul, that man has certain faculties, and
intoits parts.
may be considered in the natural state, or in the state of
original justice, or in the state of integrity, of fallen nature, or of
redeemed nature ?
The complexus of concepts thus formed by the intel¬
ligence to manifest the parts which an incomplex objective
concept presents confusedly to the mind as entering into
its compass under one aspect or another, or the complex
term that outwardly expresses this complexus of concepts
and puts it into language, is what logicians call
THE DIVISION

of this concept.1 Do not confuse division itself with the

1 The logician considers strictly and immediately the work produced, the
accomplished division, and not the act of dividing.
 THE CONCEPT 8l

proposition that relates it to a subject. The division of a

triangle would be, for example, the complex term :

isosceles or scalene

and not the proposition

the triangle is isosceles or scalene.

(a) From this we may see that, like definition, division

is related to the first operation of the mind ; the logical
fabrication of the concept-group which is called “ divi¬
sion,” and relates to a subject in a proposition, depends
upon simple apprehension.
(.b) It is likewise evident that, like definition and
argumentation, division is an instrument of knowledge
(modus sciendi).

33. definition of division. Just as the notion of defini¬ Division of

a word into
tion may be extended from the definition of the thing to that its meanings

of the name, so may the notion of division which is primarily

concerned with the different parts of an objective concept
or of a nature (division of the thing, or “ real ” division) be
extended to the diverse significations of a word (division of
the name, or nominal division). The general definition of
division is, then :
Division is
division is a concept or a complex term that distributes a whole defined as.
oratio rem
(thing or name) into its parts. aliquam per
sua membra,
aut terminum
In saying “ complex concept ” we are considering per varias
signified-
mental division ; in saying “ complex term ” (or “ locu¬ tiones
distribuens
tion ”) we are considering spoken division.
 CHAPTER II

THE PROPOSITION AND THE SECOND OPERATION OF THE MIND

SECTION i. THE JUDGMENT

34. It is not enough to think “ delicate people,” “ unfor¬

tunate,” “ formal dress,” or “ a nuisance ” in order to
have something complete in the mind. I have a complete
thing in my mind only when I think, for example,
“ delicate people are unfortunate,” or “ formal dress is a
nuisance.” I see immediately that a completed thing of
this kind is a whole, composed of several parts united by an
affirmative verb, or separated by a negative verb. The act
by which I affirm or deny something in this way is the judg¬
ment.
The judgment, as we already know,1 is the second opera¬
tion of the mind. It may be defined as
The Judg¬
ment is that
that act of the mind by which it unites by affirming or separates
act by
which the
by denying,
mind unites
by affirming
or separates
or, in traditional terminology, it is the act of the mind by
by denying.
which it “ composes ” or “ divides ” by affirming or by
denying : actio intellects, qua componit vel dividit affirmando vel
negando. (We affirm or deny when we declare that some-,
thing is, or is not.)

(a) In categorical judgments (e.g., “ man is mortal ”)

the judgment unites or separates two objective concepts :
man and mortal; in hypothetical judgments (see below,
No. 45, “ if Peter is human, he is mortal ”), the judgment
unites or separates two enunciations or propositions :
“ Peter is human ” and “ Peter is mortal.”
It is evident that hypothetical judgments unite several
previously formed categorical propositions ; therefore

1 See above, No. 2.

8a
 THE PROPOSITION 83
that which the second operation of the mind forms
primarily (per se primo) is the categorical proposition.
Categorical judgments and categorical propositions will
also be given primary consideration in this section.
(b) Considering concepts in relation to the thing itself
“ secundum rationes rerum quarum sunt similitudines,”
there is composition “ when the intelligence compares
one concept with another in such a manner as to grasp
the conjunction or identity between the things which these
concepts represent ; and division when the intelligence
compares one concept with another in such a manner as
to apprehend that these things are different.” In this sense
an affirmative enunciation is called “ composition ” in
quantum conjunctionem ex parte rei significat, a negative enun¬
ciation, “ division,” in quantum significat rerum separationem
and the second operation of the mind is called composition
and division.
But considering concepts secundum se, as they are them¬
selves in the mind, the intelligence always formulates its
(affirmative or negative) enunciations by comparing and
combining concepts. From this aspect, the second opera¬
tion of the mind always involves composition (St. Thomas,
in Periherm., I, Chap. I, lect. 3, n. 4).
Likewise, in relation to the things that the enunciation
presents to the mind, the affirmative judgment is an
assent (“ assensus ”) and the negative judgment a dissent—
a refusal of assent (“ dissensus ”). But in relation to the
enunciation itself as formed in the mind, every (affirmative
or negative) judgment is an assent: “ It is true that Peter
is a man,” “ It is true that Peter is not an angel.”

Not every union (compositio, avvdecns), nor every separation

(,divisio, Sialpecns), constitutes a judgment; for example, we
may unite or “ compose between ” Caesar and victorious, and
think victorious Caesar, but in so doing we are not judging—
we are making an act of simple apprehension.1 We do not
judge unless, in combining or dividing the two concepts by

1 Furthermore (see No. 35, inset) we may compose or divide two concepts bj>
means of the verb, without making a judgment, if we do not attach a signification
of assent to this verb.
 84 logic

means of the verb, we think “ Caesar is victorious ’ or Caesar is

not victorious.”
We should also note that, in composing or dividing two
concepts by means of a verb, the most important thing,
and that which properly constitutes the judgment, is our
act of affirming or denying which is joined to our act of
composing or dividing. When I think “ Caesar is victorious
or “ Caesar is not victorious” bmake a judgment only because,
in using the word “ is,” I have the explicit intention of
affirming that this is so, or in using the words “ is not,” of
denying that this is so. There is no judgment until the mind
affirms or denies something, until it determines or decides
what is. For does not the very word “judgment” evoke
the idea of an authoritative decree ? The act by which the
mind makes such an inward statement by affirming or denying
something is called assent (assensus) ; and it is this irreducible
act of interior affirmation or negation, known to everyone through
personal experience, that formally constitutes the judgment.
To judge is essentially to “ assent.” True, the act of assent is
purely immanent and taken in itself does not consist in pro¬
ducing a term ; but it occurs in human minds only on con¬
dition that we unite or separate, “ compose ” or “ divide ”
—that we produce or construct something within us.1
The act of
judging 35. judgment and the enunciation. By “ composing ”
(assent)
bears on a and “dividing,” the mind forms within, itself a certain
proposition
whose matter immaterial product or “ mental word,” 2 a certain group
is the S. and
Pr. and 1 See below, No. 36.—-The essential distinction between the act of the mind
whose form
is the (the judgment) and the logical product constructed by it (the proposition or
copula. enunciation) has been lost sight of by many modern logicians, especially those
under the influence of Kant by whom properly so-called (universal, particular,
singular, synthetic, analytic, etc.) propositions are called (universal, synthetic,
singular, etc.) judgments. However, there are some modern authors, Meinong,
for example, who see the necessity of returning to this distinction. It is chiefly
because Goblot has not understood this sound distinction between the judg¬
ment and the proposition that he has substituted for it the much less happy
distinction between “actual judgment” (accompanied by what he most
inexactly terms “ belief”—that is, assent), and virtual judgment (Logique,
11.49-51).
2 The expression “ mental word ” which is said primarily of the concept
produced by the first operation of the mind may also be said by extension of
the proposition itself produced by the second operation of the mind (cf.
Hugon, Curs. Phil., Metaph., t. IV, p. 137). Thus the Thomistic theologians
say that in the infused act of faith the impressed species are natural, and the
mental word supernatural, in the sense that it is expressed by the intelligence
as elevated by the lumen infusum fidei. Here the verbum mentale designates the
mental proposition (cf. Garrigou-Lagrange, De Revelatione, t. I, p. 510).
 THE PROPOSITION
85

of concepts that constitutes a (mental) enunciation or

proposition and is expressed by an oral enunciation or
proposition : e.g., “ man is mortal.” We cannot judge or
“ assent ” unless we form within us a mental enunciation or
proposition.
This enunciation or proposition has for its matter the
things (objective concepts) which are united or separated,
“ composed ” or “ divided ” : that is, the subject (S.) and
the predicate (Pr.).1
It has for its form the union or the separation, the “ com¬
position ” or the “ division ” itself. This form is signified
by the affirmative or negative verb, that is, by the copula
“ is ” or “ is not.”

The copula “ is ” or “ is not ” has a double function.

This function may be said to be merely copulative when
the copula as yet expresses composition or division in a
material fashion only, and simply connects the S. and Pr.,
without the mind’s actually considering the act of being
as an act. For instance, in reading a book I may come
across the statement : “ there is a treasure buried here,”
and consequently formulate the proposition in my mind
as an object of simple apprehension, but for all that I
need not make any judgment.2
The copula has a properly judicative function in so far
as it expresses a vital act of assent (affirmation or negation)
made by the mind thinking formally of the act of being
as an act. For example, if we were actually hunting
treasure we could, in face of some discovery, formulate
this proposition : “ a treasure is buried here.” In this
case we would really be making a judgment—an explicit
affirmation.

*36. analysis of the judgment. The analysis of the

1 See above, Nos. 22 and 24.

2 We have said above (Nos. 23 and 27) that every proposition signifies the
real or ideal, actual or possible, existence of a subject with a certain predicate,
and that therefore the verb to be always signifies (actual or possible) existence,
even when it is used as a copula. When the function of the verb to be remains
simple copulative, it is because the actual or possible existence or non-existence
of a subject with a certain predicate is not yet formally thought as act, there¬
fore as effectively held by the subject {ut exercita) : as yet there is no judgment,
no proposition properly so called.
 operations of the mind—which properly belongs to Psy¬
chology not to Logic—is a delicate affair, especially when
it deals with operations which may be decomposed into
diverse moments so subtle that we cannot find in everyday
language adequate expressions to distinguish them. Never¬
theless, in order to clarify our ideas, it will be expedient
to trespass upon the realm of Psychology, and to inquire
whether in the case of the judgment, there are not several
distinguishable actions of the mind, all of which terminate
in a single oral expression (an oral proposition).
Two terms,
conceived
At the moment of judging, (i) I have two terms in my
by simple
apprehen¬
mind, e.g., “ human soul ” and “ immortal,” each of which
sion, are
combined in
is conceived by means of simple apprehension.
a simply
enunciativc
(2) I arrange, or combine these two terms together, by
proposition
setting them up as subject and predicate of an enunciation.
That is the work of composition and division, considered as the
simple material construction which precedes the judgment
properly so-called.

(a) When we make a doubtful enunciation, we see with

particular clarity that the act of constructing an enuncia¬
tion, in which we already combine and divide, is not the
same as the act of judging. In formulating such a pro¬
position we have materially combined two concepts ;
we have not judged (for on the contrary, we are with¬
holding assent, and taking care not to say “ this is so ”
or “ this is not so ”).
(b) When we apprehend as such the enunciation
constructed before judging, the enunciation as yet
unjudged, we compare two concepts as subject and
predicate linked together by the copula in an (actual or
possible) existence, which is not yet thought of as being
existence in act, as existence effectively held (ut exercita).1
We do not compare them to each other in relation to
what is, to what really exists (actually or possibly).
In other words, we do not compare them as subject and
predicate affirmed of one another by the copula (properly
judicative function of the verb to be).
(c) This enunciation, which we construct before judging

1 See the preceding note

 THE PROPOSITION
87

and which expresses not a completed judgment, but a

possible judgment or a judgment to be made, may for
that reason be called a proposition to be judged, or a simply
enunciative proposition. It is as the matter of the proposi¬
tion taken formally, or the judicative proposition, by which
the mind “posits ” before itself a connection of concepts
as true.
Such an enunciation must necessarily precede the judg¬
ment. The assent of the mind can bear only on matter
capable of receiving it, on a complex truth whose terms
are linked together by a verb and are therefore con¬
structed as S. and Pr. In other words, the assent of the
mind can bear only on a proposition or enunciation.
Thus, first, the proposition is constructed (with the verb
to be in its purely copulative function) and then, only, it
is judged.1
The presence in us of these materially considered pro¬
positions that precede the judgment is easily established
by observation. A question must be asked before it can
be answered. Generally, before making an affirmation
in which the very truth of our mind is involved we must
first have gone through some process of discovery or
“ invention.” It is by having before our mind a
proposition that is already constructed, but as something
“ to be judged ” as “ invented,” not as demonstrated
[e.g., “ plants breathe ” (?)] that we can in a reasoning
(inductive in this case) compare the S. and Pr. with
that which is, and judge that it is true : " yes, plants
breathe.”
It not infrequently happens that whereas some have light

1 Judicium est assensus intellectus circa aliquid quod est capax talis judicii;
sed solum est capax talis judicii veritas complexa significata per enuntiationem ;
ergo actus judicii distinguitur a formatione enuntiationis. Maj. constat.
Quia judicium est id quo determinatur intellectus assentiendo quod ita est
vel non est, hoc enim est judicare ; sed non potest assentiri, aut pronuntiare
quod ita est vel non est, nisi circa aliquid complexum, quod connectitur cum
verbo, ut experientia constat, et hoc est enuntiatio ; ergo prius formatur enun-
tiatio, et deinde judicatur.
“ Quod etiam patet quia multoties apprehendimus et formamus enuntia-
tiones de rebus dubiis sine ullo judicio, ut cum dicimus : astra sunt paria,
thesaurus est in isto loco, de quibus nescimus judicare et determinare asser¬
tive ; ergo aliud est enuntiatio, aliud judicium ” (John of St. Thomas, Log.
I.P., Illustr., q.v., a. 1).
 88 LOGIC

especially to judge, others are gifted rather to materially

arrange in orderly sequence, to construct, or to “ com¬
pose ” concepts.1 Some minds of fertile invention lack
judgment ; others of taste and sure judgment lack
inventiveness. We may add that the constructive elabora¬
tion which precedes judgment may take place uncon¬
sciously (and often progress quite far), whereas the judg¬
ment itself is always conscious.
(d) If philosophers often disregard this distinction it is
because simply enunciative propositions are masked.,, so
to speak, by judicative propositions, which are absolutely
similar to them as to verbal expression and which mani¬
fest a completed judgment. Again, at the moment in
which the mind pronounces itself, it composes (formally)
and judges simultaneously in a single act. Nevertheless,
the fact remains that before the perfect formal composi¬
tion which is made in, and by, the assent itself, there is a
material composition which precedes the act of judging
or assenting.2

Thus the mind does not arrive immediately at the judg¬

ment properly so-called, which is a “ perfect ” or completed
operation. First of all, it prepares the matter. It “ com¬
poses ” concepts, it constructs enunciations (which are as
yet objects of simple apprehension and not objects of judg¬
ment) wherein the verb to be has a simply copulative function
and not yet judicative or “ assertive.” It is after materially
grouping the concepts together that the mind completes
their composition, formally, in the act of existence itself.
That is, it declares them to be identified with one another
in extra-mental existence, and thereby declares what I
think of things to be conformed with what is or can be
independent of my mind.
a°s!^nddi?! (3) The next step is the comparison of the subject
mindpehr-the “the human soul,” and the predicate “immortal,” in
ceives relation to what is, to what exists.
Whether this comparison be made by the simple examina¬
tion of the two terms (e.g., “ the whole is greater than any

1 Cf. St. Thomas, Sum. theol., II—II, 173, 2 ; de Verit., q. 12, a. 7.

2 Cf. John of St. Thomas, Phil. Nat., Ill, p. 513 (Vivks).
 THE PROPOSITION 89

one of its parts”), or by means of sense experience (e.g.,

“ snow is white ”) or in virtue of a reasoning that resolves
the enunciation under consideration into its principles (e.g.,
“ the human soul is immortal,” “ the sum of the angles of
a triangle is equal to two right angles”), in any event it
shows that the compared concepts really conform or do not
conform to each other (in actual or possible existence).

No doubt the judgment itself adds something to the

perception of the conformity or non-conformity of Pr.
to S., for it consists formally only in the act of assent.
Furthermore, the judgment may be made, even thoqgh
the perception in question be lacking, for instance, when
we judge on the testimony of another that a certain S.
has a certain Pr., without having seen for ourselves that
this is so.1 But when this perception takes place—as it
does in all “ evident ” or “ scientific ” judgments—it is
but one in concreto with the judgment, and precedes it
only with a priority of nature and not with a priority
of time. This is the reason why, when this perception
takes place, the judgment necessarily and infallibly
takes place likewise.
and declares
(4) Then seeing that the Pr. “ immortal ” really con¬ (the act ot
assent) their
forms to the S. “ human soul,” simultaneously and in the conformity
or noncon¬
same act, I affirm the one of the other, thus making a state¬ formity
ment about what is, and declaring that what is in my mind
conforms to what exists. This is the assent, and the act of
judging properly so-called.
in a
(5) This act of assent bears on the proposition taken properly r
judicative jt .
materially, the simply enunciative proposition which I had proposition.
constructed before judging and in order to judge. Now I
express it in the same enunciation : “ the human soul is
immortal,” but this time I utter it as the sign of a completed
judgment, as a judgment which has become a properly
judicative enunciation or proposition. Thus the mental word
(the proposition) which is proper to the act of judging and
which that act necessarily requires, just as the act of appre-

1 In this case, we see not that this S. has this Pr., but that we should affirm
that it has. In such a case the judgment is made under the influence of the will,
not through ttecessity.
 90 LOGIC

hension necessarily requires the concept produced by the

mind, appears here under the double aspect: 1 as an
indispensable condition, and as the matter on which the
act of judging must bear (the proposition taken materially
or simply enunciative proposition) ; and 2 as the sign of
this act, the completed product wherein it is expressed in
being made (the proposition taken formally or judicative
proposition).
37. the simplicity of the judgment. It is evident from
the foregoing that the judgment properly so-called is
simple, that is to say, indivisible, not decomposable into
The judg¬ parts. It consists in the act of “ composing ” or “ dividing ”
ment is a
simple or only so far as this act is completed in the act of assent which
indivisible
act bearing formally constitutes the judgment, and wherein knowledge
upon a logi¬
cal organism has its term in an ita est, “ this is so.”
(a proposi¬
tion) that is The proposition itself by which this judgment is expressed
one and un¬
divided. is something one and undivided ; true, it is composed of
parts, the S. and Pr., but these parts are presented to the
mind together, as constituting by their union a living whole.
Indeed, if we were to divide this whole not only would the
whole itself perish, but its parts would cease to be what they
are : we should have two concepts—but we should no
longer have a subject and a predicate. It is this whole which
is presented in its unity to the mind, and which the judg¬
ment ratifies by uttering it in such fashion that the mind,
in the moment of judging, does not grasp the S. before the
Pr., or the Pr. before the S., but grasps both the one and
the other instantaneously in the same act.1 Be careful
here not to confuse the spoken or written proposition in
which the S. comes before the Pr., with the mental pro¬
position in which they are presented together (and of
which we are speaking here).

(a) As Bossuet says : “ the understanding of terms

naturally precedes the grouping of them, otherwise we

St. Thomas, C. Gent., I, LV : “ Quod quando aliqua multa accipiuntur

quocumque modo unita, simul intelliguntur, simul enim intelligitur totum
continuum, non partem post partem, et similiter intelligitur simul propositio,
non prius praedicatum, et postea subjectum, quia secundum unam totius
speciem omnes partes comprehenduntur.” Cf. Sum. theol I—II n? 7 ad 2 •
VI Met., lect. ult. ’ "
 THE PROPOSITION
91
would not know what we are assembling.” 1 That is
why simple apprehension precedes judgment. The mind
produces concepts before assembling them, and in this
sense it must be said that we know the parts of a pro¬
position (taken separately and in themselves) before knowing
the proposition itself. Compositionem non est intelligere sine
compositis.2
But once formed and constructed, the proposition, matter
and expression of the simple act of judgment—the whole,
that is this proposition itself, is known before the subject
and predicate are known separately as such. In this
sense it must be said that we know the proposition itself
before knowing its parts (taken as parts of this whole).3
*(b) We have said that the proposition is one and
undivided. The question of knowing if, in addition to this,
it is presented to the mind by a single mental word newly
produced by the mind at the moment in which it com¬
poses the S. and Pr., a “ mental word ” or “ concept ”
proper to the second operation of the mind which would
be one, not only with a unity of order, but with a unity of
being or quality and consequently really simple, is a more
difficult question to answer and one which is controverted.
It seems that (as far as categorical propositions are con¬
cerned) the answer should be in the affirmative. For the
1 Bossuet, Connaissance de Dieu et de soi-metne, ch. I, 13. The spirit of syste¬
matization is so strong in some logicians that they even misconceive so obvious
a truth and declare that the judgment precedes the concept. Thus Goblot
{Log., p. 87) considers the concept to be nothing but the attribute of a possible
infinity of judgments. This formula has a meaning, if it signifies that the
concept, existing in the mind as a concept, is destined to be the attribute of
possible judgments, which will exist by means of it—but it becomes perplexing
if it signifies that the concept exists only as the attribute of judgments that do
not yet exist; (at this rate we come very near to having nothing at all exist
in the mind).
As we shall see in Griticism, even as far back as Kant, although in another
sense, the concept (category) was, in a certain manner, the fruit or result of
judgment.
* St. Thomas, in Periherm., lib. I, c. v, lect. 8, n. 9 ; cf. lect. 5, No. 21.
3 St. Thomas, Sum. theol., I, q. 85, a. 3, ad 3. “ Pars aliqua dupliciter potest
cognosci : uno modo absolute ; secundum quod in se est; et sic nihil pro-
hibet prius cognoscere partes, quam totum, ut lapides, quam domum. Alio
modo, secundum quod sunt partes hujus totius : et sic necesse est quod prius cognoscamus
totum quam partes: prius enim cognoscimus domum quadam confusa cognitione
quam distinguamus singulas partes ejus.”—Cf. a. 4, ad 3 ; et I, q. 58, a. 2,
resp. : “ Et sic etiam intellectus noster simul intelligit subjectum et prae-
dicatum prout sunt partes unius propositionis, et duo comparata, secundum
quod conveniunt in una comparatione.”
 92 LOGIC

categorical proposition is indeed the product immediately

and primarily formed by the second operation of the
mind {illud quod per se primo format secunda operatio nostri
intellectus) and it presents something new to the mind,
viz., the identity of the S. and Pr. which it groups together
and offers to the mind per modum unius. There is, therefore,
justification for thinking that this proposition constitutes
a unique representative quality, newly produced by the mind.1
It is by the
judgment 38. what is proper to the judgment. If I think merely
that the
mind is “ centaur,” “ man,” “ horse,” “ two,” “ three,” do I
true or
false. think what is true or what is false ? No. I have as yet
neither truth nor falsity in my mind. But if I think “ cen¬
taurs exist,” “ the horse is human,” “ two and three make
six,” I am mistaken. If I think, on the contrary, “ centaurs
do not exist,” “ the horse is not human,” “ two and three
make five,” I think what is true. We may say, then, that to
contain truth or falsity of knowledge is proper to the judg¬
ment. We are merely taking note of this point here in
passing for we shall meet with it again in Criticism. Truth
is indeed the conformity between the mind and what is.
But only when the mind declares : “ this is so, the thing
exists thus ” (in actual or possible existence) does it perform
an act of knowing, conformed or non-conformed as such
to what is, to what exists really or ideally, actually or possibly.

Since in man the apprehension of intelligible natures

(simple apprehension) by means of abstraction does not
provide material for judgment or assent, this apprehen¬
sion must be completed by a second operation : the
composition or division of concepts, the only means by
which we have—in judging—true or false knowledge.
Note that this condition is due to the imperfection of our
intelligence. An intelligence superior to man’s which

1 Cf. St. Thomas, in III de Anima, lect. 6 ; Metaph., lect. ult.; and Quodlib
v, a. 9. “ Duplex est operatio intellectus secundum Phil. Ill, de Anima, una
quidem, quae vocatur mdivisibilium intelligentia (id est simplex apprehensio)
per quam intellectus format definitionem, vel conceptum alicujus incomplexi’
Aha autem operatio est intellectus componentis et dividentis (id est compositio
vel divisio) secundum quam format verbum. Et utrumque istorum per
intellectual constitutorum vocatur verbum cordis, quorum primum signi-
ficatur per terminum incomplexum, secundum per orationem.” Cf likewise
John of St. Thomas, Log., I.P., Appendix.
 THE PROPOSITION
93

would penetrate the entire object, essence and attributes,

in a single act of intuition or synthetic apprehension,
which would see it immediately as having or not having
such and such attributes in reality, would at the same
time judge instantaneously in the same operation without having
to compose or divide.1

SECTION 2. THE PROPOSITION

A. GENERAL NOTIONS

i. Discourse in General

39. COMPLETE (PERFECT) DISCOURSE AND INCOMPLETE (IM¬

PERFECT) discourse. We may define discourse in general

(oratio) as every concatenation or construction of concepts

or terms.

Logicians define discourse as : a succession of articulate

sounds whose separate parts have their own meaning as terms.
This definition relates to spoken or oral discourse,2 3 which
is the expression of thought-discourse (a series of linked
or connected concepts).

Perfect or complete discourse (oratio perfecta) presents to the

intelligence a meaning in which it may rest, e.g., “ the
prudent man speaks but little55 ; imperfect or incomplete
discourse (oratio imperfecta) leaves the intelligence in suspense,
e.g., “ a prudent man.” 3

Logic makes an especial study of two types of imperfect

discourse, namely definition and division, because they are

1 Cf. St. Thomas, Sum. theol., I, q. 58, a. 4 ; q. 85, a. 5. Likewise within

due proportion, the external sense “judges ” things at the same time and by
the same operation by which it perceives them (cf. St. Thomas, de Verit.,
q. 1, a. 9).
2 We are using the word “discourse” here in order to translate the Latin
“ oratio ” by a single word. We might also use “ verbal expression,” “ v.e.,”
or “ verbal enunciation,” “ v.e.,” as suggested by the Dictionary of the Soc.
franc, de Philosophic.
3 Notice the nuance that distinguishes imperfect discourse from the complex term.
A group of terms such as “ the prudent man ” or “ a rational animal ” is
an imperfect discourse when considered in itself and as a whole ; this same group is
a complex term when considered in the proposition as a part; for example, in the
proposition : “ the prudent man speaks but little,” “ man is a rational animal.”
 LOGIC
94

modes or means of knowledge (there are three modes or means

of knowledge, modi sciendi: i—Definition (see above,
Section 4, 29) ; 2—Division (see above, Section 5) ;
3—Argumentation (see below, No. 60). The modes of
knowledge will be studied in Major Logic.

40. THE DIFFERENT KINDS OF COMPLETE OR PERFECT

discourse. There are three kinds of perfect discourse :

The enunciation (or proposition) (oratio enunciativa) which
expresses the judgment or the conception of the mind
composing or dividing.
The argumentation (oratio argumentiva) which expresses the
reasoning, and
From Discourse for a practical purpose (oratio ordinativa) which ex- *
among the
different presses something to be done. No doubt the latter type of
kinds of
perfect discourse presupposes some judgment, but that which it
discourse
Logic communicates to another is not precisely this judgment, but
considers
only the rather a certain motive for action. For this reason Logic,
enunciation
or considering human language in so far as it expresses the true
proposition
and or the false, treats only of the first two kinds of discourse :
argumenta¬
tion. enunciation and argumentation (that is, a series of enuncia¬
tions linked in such a manner as to produce a conclusion).

(a) There are four kinds of practical discourse (oratio

ordinativa) : discourse that summons (oratio vocativa) by which
We move another to attention : “ Rabbi ” ; discourse
that interrogates (oratio interrogated), by means of which
we move him to answer : “ Ubi habitas ? ” ; discourse
that commands (oratio imperativa) : “ Venite et videte,” by
which we move an inferior to perform some act, and
discourse that implores (oratio deprecativa) : “Domine aperi
nobis,” by which we move a superior to perform an act
(for we are unable to move our superior as such except
by the expression of our desire). Discourse that expresses
a wish (oratio optativa) may be reduced to oratio deprecativa.
*{b) Logic omits from its consideration not only these
four kinds of discourse, but also all the nuances of ex¬
pression which in everyday language are mixed with
enunciative discourse itself in order to make it signify not
only what is, but also the opinion of the subject in regard
to what is. In language Logic considers purely and simply the
 THE PROPOSITION 95

expression of thought from the point of view of the true and

the false.
For this reason it reduces every (categorical) enuncia¬
tion to the expression of an identity by means of the verbal
copula.
This is a point worth remembering. We make use of a
great many forms of speech that express something other
than the simple identity (in re) of a Pr. and a S., but
that is because, in these cases, these forms of speech are
themselves something other than a simple enunciation.
No doubt the phrase “ Behold three men ” implies an
enunciation, but one which is comprised within the
oratio vocativa. What it actually means is “ Pay attention !
There are three men ahead of you.” Suppress this
nuance (or any other similar to it) relating to action,
reduce the speech to the simple enunciation considered
by Logic, and there remains : “ three men are ahead of
you,” or “ three men are arriving.” Thus, whatever (in
discourse) differs from the attribution of a predicate to a
subject is simply something that, to that extent, goes
beyond the enunciation properly so-called.
It may very well be that a certain confusion on this
point has accidentally strengthened the theorists of the
“ logic of relation,” particularly Bertrand Russell, in
their opposition to the logic of inherence or predication.
For against this logic they cite the irreducibility of an
“ affirmation of number,” such as “ Behold three men,”
to an affirmation of inherence.
As a matter of fact, the speech with which we are con¬
cerned is either something other than an enunciation
and is to that extent outside the domain of Logic, or else
it is nothing other than an enunciation and is thus always
reducible to the affirmation or negation of the presence of
a predicate in a subject—or, in other words, of the identity
in re of this Pr. and S. As we shall see in Major Logic,
those who hold to the contrary are victims of a confusion
between the logical subject and the real subject.1 (“ Three
1 This confusion between the real subject and the logical subject lies at the
core of Leibnitz’s philosophy. It has passed thence to a great number of
modern logicians and becomes the more increasingly serious as it assumes
more metaphysical character.
 96 LOGIC

men are here ” : three real subjects, but a single logical

subject, which is the objective concept “ three men ” and
which receives the predicate “ are here.”) “ Peter and
Louis are first-cousins ” ; two real subjects, but only one
logical subject, which is the objective concept “ Peter and
Louis ” which receives the predicate “ first cousins,”
without there being for all that an “ accident in two
subjects having one foot in one subject and the other
foot in the other ” as Leibnitz would have had it.1 For in
speaking thus, Leibnitz was considering real subjects.
Now the accident “ Louis’ first-cousin,” exists only in
the real subject Peter, and the accident “ Peter’s first-
cousin ” exists only in the real subject Louis, but that
in no way hinders the logical subject “ Peter and Louis ”
from receiving in the mind the predicate “ first cousins ”
which precisely signifies this double relation.

2. The Enunciation or Proposition

The 41. GENERAL NOTION OF THE ENUNCIATION OR PROPOSI¬
enunciation
or proposi¬ TION. Take some enunciation, for example : “ It is a nice
tion is a
discourse
signifying
day.” This is a construction of concepts furnishing matter
the true or
the false.
for a judgment and we have seen that it is only when it
thus “ composes or divides,” and judges, that the mind is
properly true or false ; therefore we shall say that

an enunciation or proposition is a complete discourse signifying

the true or the false,

that is, expressing a complex object on which a judgment

may bear.

(a) We have seen that just as the thought-term or concept

must be distinguished from the oral term or word, so must
the thought-proposition or construction of concepts be dis¬
tinguished from the oral proposition, or spoken expression of
this thought-proposition (see above, No. 3). Actually in
studying one we study the other ; and, since concepts
are more difficult to study in themselves than in the
material signs which express them, Logic studies and

1 Cf. Bertrand Russell, The Philosophy of Leibniz (Camb. Univ. Press, 1900),
p. 13.
 THE PROPOSITION
97

constructs the theory of the proposition in considering

the oral proposition especially, but only in so far as it is the
expression of the proposition in the mind.
(b) To say that the enunciation or proposition signifies
the true or the false is to say that it presents to the mind an
object to which it belongs to be true or false, and to which
the mind can give or refuse its assent. To be actually and
determinately true, or actually and determinately false is acci¬
dental to the proposition (as it is to the judgment itself).
Indeed, in certain cases (contingent matters) the same
proposition and the same judgment (e.g., Peter is seated) may
be alternately true (when Peter is seated) and false (when
Peter stands). What is essential to the proposition and to
the judgment is not to be true or to be false, but to be true
or false according to the case.
This simple remark has a very important application
in the question of the contingent future. A proposition
such as “ Peter will be admitted to the Institute of
Technology in two years,” considering the secondary
causes upon which this event depends, is neither actually
and determinately true nor actually and determinately
false. It is true or false, but it is impossible to say that it is
true or that it is false ; in other words its truth remains
undetermined until the realization of the event (see below,
No. 55b).
*(c) As we have seen above (No. 36) a distinction must
be made between the simply enunciative proposition which
precedes the judgment, and the judicative proposition,
which follows and expresses the judgment. In the first,
there is truth or falsity simply presented to the mind, or
simply apprehended (veritas vel falsitas per modum reprae-
sentationis), since no judgment has yet been made ; in
the second there is truth or falsity judged or accepted
(veritas vel falsitas per modum assensus). Only in this second
type of enunciation or proposition is the mind itself
rendered true or false, since it alone implies a judgment
made.
The spoken enunciation or proposition is often called
the oral expression of the judgment. If we adopt this manner
of speaking, we must note that the simply enunciative
 98 LOGIC

proposition as met with, for example, in a doubtful

enunciation wherein there is no judgment : “ Is there
an even number of planets ? ” is nothing but the expres¬
sion of a possible judgment, a judgment to be made. The
judicative enunciation alone is the expression of a com¬
pleted judgment.
*{d) There is a shade of meaning between the word
“ enunciation ” and the word “ proposition ” : the
enunciation becomes a proposition properly so-called
only when it is put forward or “ proposed ” as part of a
reasoning.1 But this distinction remains purely theoretical,
and for all practical purposes the two words are accepted
as being synonymous “ apud sapientes.” 2

The 42. THE MATTER AND FORM OF THE PROPOSITION. What

proposition
has for its constitutes the unity and the being of the proposition ?
form the
copula and The copula. Without it we have no undivided organism, but
for it*
matter the only disjointed materials. We may say that the proposition
S. and Pr.
considered from the point of view of its use in reasoning, as
is suitable in Logic, has for form (or soul) the copula, and
for matter the (“ syllogistic ”) terms, S. and Pr.,3 which are
also called the “ extremes.” Every proposition has these
three elements, {Lego, for example, is equivalent to ego sum
legens) and may be reduced to them. “ The plague waged
war on the beasts ” is equivalent to the plague (S.) was (C.)
waging war on the beasts (Pr.).
But 43. the role of the extremes. If we compare the S.
considered
in relation and the Pr. of a proposition to one another we see that the
to one
another the mind, in constructing the proposition, first posits the S.,
S. has the
rile of e.g., Peter, and then applies to it a determination signified
matter and
the Pr. the by the Pr., “ is a musician.” Because the Pr. is thus applied
rile of
form. by the copula to the S. which in some way receives it in
itself, as the form of the seal is impressed on .the wax, we
say that the subject stands in the proposition as matter and
the Pr. as form (subjectum se habet materialiter, praedicatum se
habet formaliter) .4 And this universal form is brought down

1 Cf. St. Thomas, in Perihermeneias, lib. I, cap. IV, lect. 7 ; in Anal, post.,
lib. I, cap. II, lect. 5.
1 John of St. Thomas, Logica, Prima Pars, Illustrationes, q. 5, a. 1.
s See above, Nos. 22 and 24.
* Cf. St. Thomas, in Perihermeneias, lib. I, cap. V, lect. 8, n. 9, 11 ; cap. VII
lect. 10, n. io, 23.
 THE PROPOSITION 99

on the S. by the copula as on a thing contained in its exten¬

sion and in which it is realized.

This determination of the subject as matter by the predi¬

cate as form, exists not only in our manner of conception,
or in our mind (in the logical order), but also in the real
(in the real order, physical or metaphysical) when the
object of judgment is a substance determined by an
accident, e.g., “ This man is learned ” (that is, he has
the accidental determination learning, which is real and
really distinct from the substance of this man). But
obviously this determination exists only in our manner
of conception or in our mind, in a proposition such as :
“ this statue is of marble ” (for marble is the very matter
of the statue), or again “the human soul is spiritual”
(for spirituality is not an accident distinct from the
substance of the soul, but is one of its metaphysical
properties), or “ God is good ” (for the divine goodness is
God himself).

Remember that in the theory of the proposition and of

reasoning, the words S. and Pr. do not designate the concept
which serves as S. in the proposition taken separately and
in itself, or the concept which serves as Pr. taken separately
and in itself, but designate these concepts with the deter¬
minations which accrue to them from their having been
referred to one another in the proposition constructed by
the mind. These determinations are translated into oral
expression by the complementary signs “ every,” “ all,”
“some,” etc. (syncategorematic terms). Thus in the pro¬
positions “ some man is unjust,” “ this man is guilty,” the
S. is not precisely the concept “ man ” considered in itself,
but precisely the term “ some man ” and the term “ this
man.”

B. THE KINDS OF PROPOSITIONS

44. We may divide the different kinds of propositions

according to an essential division or according to an acci¬
dental division. In the first case we divide the proposition
by reason of that which constitutes it as such, that is by
reason of the form or copula. Hence three divisions : 1
 100 LOGIC

According to the different kinds of copula (simple or

categorical propositions and compound or hypothetical
propositions) ; 2 According as the copula “ is ” composes or
divides (affirmative and negative propositions) ; 3 Accord¬
ing as the copula “ is ” composes or divides purely and
simply (simply attributive or de inesse propositions) or
implies a certain mode in its very function as a copula com¬
posing or dividing (modal propositions).
In the second case (accidental divisions) the proposition
may be divided in a great many different ways. We shall
treat only one of them here : the division of the proposi¬
tion by reason of the quantity or extension of the S. (universal
propositions, particular propositions, etc.).

§ i. Simple Propositions and Compound Propositions

The 45. DIVISION OF THE PROPOSITION BY REASON OF THE

proposition
issimple DIVERSITY OF THE COPULAS THEMSELVES, fl) Take for
{categorical) - . . . v 7
os^compound example a proposition such as : man is mortal55 or
theticai). “ man is not an angel.” It has for its parts a S. and a Pr.
united or separated by means of the verbal copula “ is.” Pro¬
positions of this type are called categorical, that is, attributive
(praedicativa) ; or again
SIMPLE

Now take, on the contrary, a proposition that has for

parts not two concepts but two previously formed (simple)
propositions, united and conjoined by means of a copula
other than the verb, such as the particles and, if, or. A pro¬
position of this kind constructs a new truth, distinct from
the categorical truths and dependent upon them. It is there¬
fore called hypothetical or
COMPOUND

The ^ (2) There are two kinds of compound propositions : the

compound
proposition
is openly first openly compound and, the second, occultly compound.
or occultly If the very structure of the proposition shows that it has
compound.
for parts two propositions, we say that this proposition is
formally hypothetical, or
OPENLY COMPOUND
 THE PROPOSITION 101

If the structure, of the proposition is indicated only by a

word which it contains (and which is equivalent to one or
several propositions), we say that this proposition is virtually
hypothetical or
OCCULTLY COMPOUND

(3) In the case of the openly compound proposition, we The openly

compound
may say : “ The brave gave their lives and the cowards proposition
is
made money55 : this is a copulative,
disjunctive
COPULATIVE or condi¬
tional.

proposition ; or again we may say : “ There must be one

leader, or our affairs will be mismanaged ” : this is a

1 o DISJUNCTIVE 1

proposition ; or else finally : “ If the earth turns it moves ” :

this is a
11 CONDITIONAL
proposition
(4) In the case of the occultly compound proposition, we The
occultly
may say, for example : “ The human species alone is such compound
proposition
that evil befalls it more often than good ” : this is an is
exclusive,
exceptive or
EXCLUSIVE reduplicative.

proposition. Or again : “ Every substance except ether

can be weighed ” : this is an
EXCEPTIVE

proposition. Or finally : “ The wicked, as wicked, should

be hated ” : this is a «
REDUPLICATIVE
proposition.

1 The disjunctive proposition affirms that two propositions cannot be a

the same time true, nor at the same time false. The conjunctive proposition
denies that two propositions may be at the same time true, but it does not deny
that they can be at the same time false. E.g., “ One cannot be both actor and
spectator at the same time.” (But one may be neither actor nor spectator—
by never going to the theatre.)
In cases where there is no mean, e.g., “ Things cannot be at the same time
leaderless and well managed,” or “ No man can serve both God and Mammon
at the same time,” the conjunctive proposition expresses, under another form,
the same truth as the corresponding disjunctive proposition : “ We must have
a .leader or things will be mismanaged,” “ One must serve either God or
Mammon.”
 102 LOGIC

DIVISION OF THE PROPOSITION BV REASON OF THE DIVERSITY OF COPULAS

Simple :.... is.

(Categorical)
Copulative :.and
Openly
Disjunctive :.or
compound
PROPOSITION Conditional:.if .
Compound
(Hypothetical) Exclusive : (only).
Occultly | Exceptive : (except).
compound j
\ Reduplicative : (in so far as)

exercise, (i)What is the nature of the following

propositions : “ Art as such is infallible,” “ Man alone
is rational,” “ St. Augustine and St. Monica stayed
here,” “ All that is beautiful is difficult,” “ If you are
not gifted you would do better to give up the fine arts,”
“ All the deputies except two voted for the government,”
“ Every creature manifests the justice or the mercy of
God,” “ We will win or die ” ?
(2) Find examples of each of the propositions men¬
tioned in the above table.
For a 46. RULES CONCERNING OPENLY COMPOUND PROPOSITIONS.
copulative
proposition (1) In order that a copulative proposition be true each of
to be true,
both of its
parts must
its parts must be true ; in order that it be false it suffices
be true;
for a
that one of its parts be false. Thus:
copulative
proposition
“ The moon moves and the earth does not ” is a false
to be false,
it is
proposition because its second part is false.
enough that
one part (a) Thus the affirmation bears on another object of
be false.
assent in the copulative proposition than it does in the
categorical proposition. The conception of the mind
declared to be true in the copulative proposition is
something other than the simple juxtaposition of two
categorical enunciations : for we have but one false
copulative proposition : “ The moon moves and the
earth does not ” for two categorical propositions, one of
which is false : “ The earth does not move,” and the
other true : “ The moon moves.”
(b) Rule of argumentation. Granted a copulative as
true, e.g., “ It is raining and it is cold,” one thereby has
the right to posit either one of its parts, taken separately,
 THE PROPOSITION IO3

as true : “ therefore it is raining,” “ therefore it is cold.”

But it is obvious that, inversely, it is not sufficient that
one part, taken separately, be true in order that the other
part, and consequently the copulative proposition in
which the two are united, be equally true.
Given a copulative proposition as false, e.g , “ It is
false that it is raining and that it is cold” one does not
thereby have the right to deny one of its parts taken
separately (it might, for instance, be raining and yet not
be cold).
(c) A proposition can be occultly copulative ; e.g. :
“ Peter and Paul died at Rome.” Such a proposition
{de extremo copulato) is resolvable into an obviously copula¬
tive proposition : “ Peter died at Rome and Paul died
at Rome.”
(d) Do not confuse a proposition of the preceding type
with a proposition such as “ Peter and Paul are friends,”
in which “ Peter and Paul ” form but one subject, and
which is consequently a simple or categorical proposition.

(2) In order that a disjunctive proposition be true, it For a true

disjunctive
suffices that one of its parts be true ; in order that it be proposition
one true
false, both of its parts must be false. Thus—“ Good must be part suffices.
For a false
done and evil avoided or two and two do not make four ” disjunctive
proposition
is a true proposition because its first part is true. both parts
must be
false.
(a) Thus the object of assent is not the same in a dis¬
junctive proposition as it is in a categorical proposition.
(b) Rule of argumentation. “ Given one part of a dis¬
junctive as true, the whole may thereby be affirmed as
true. Given a disjunctive proposition as true, and destroy
one of its parts, the other part is thereby affirmed as
true, e.g., “ There must be one leader or our affairs will
be mismanaged ” and “ There shall be no leader, there¬
fore our affairs will be mismanaged.”
(c) This rule applies to every disjunctive proposition,
be it properly or improperly disjunctive.
In a properly disjunctive proposition, the copula or
signifies the necessity of a certain consequence. In an
improperly disjunctive proposition, the word or merely
denotes the fact of an equivalence or of a possible substitu-
 IO4 LOGIC

tion (“ or again,” “ or at least,” “ or even ”) ; thus the

proposition :
“ To come thus far one may ride or (i.e., or one may) go
afoot,” is an improperly disjunctive proposition.
In a properly disjunctive proposition, given the pro¬
position as true and affirm one of its parts, you are
thereby destroying the other part : “ There must be one
leader or our affairs will be mismanaged ; there shall be
one leader; therefore our affairs shall not be mis¬
managed.”
In an improperly disjunctive proposition, given the
proposition as true and affirm one of its parts, you do
not by that very act {in virtue of the form of the argument)
destroy the other part. For instance, if we say : “ The
violent man harms himself or harms no one,” there is
nothing to prevent both of these parts from being true
at the same time.
{d) A proposition may be occultly disjunctive; e.g.,
“ A door must be open or shut ” ; “ One may get there
by wagon or on foot.” Such propositions (de extremo
disjuncto) may be resolved into the corresponding openly
disjunctive propositions (properly disjunctive in the first
case, improperly disjunctive in the second).

a condi- (3) For a conditional proposition to be true it suffices

proposition that the sequence it signifies be valid, that is, that the second
(u conditioned ”) proposition really follow from the first
iTthl'false (the condition), even though the two propositions thus
invalid?* 18 linked be false. For such a proposition to be false it suffices
that the sequence be invalid, even though the two proposi¬
tions be true. For in the conditional proposition the judg¬
ment bears only upon the conjunction of the two proposi¬
tions—a necessary conjunction that we declare to be or not
to be. Thus the conditional proposition :
“ If 20 is an odd number, 20 cannot be divided by two,”
is true ; and the conditional proposition :
“ If England is an island, two and two make four,” is
false.

(a) Thus the object of assent, the conception of the

mind on which the affirmation bears is altogether different
 THE PROPOSITION 105

in the conditional proposition from what it is in the cate¬

gorical proposition. This is a point which we will have
to recall in studying the conditional syllogism.
It is important to understand clearly that we may
declare a conditional proposition to be true without for
all that affirming in any way the truth or even the pos¬
sibility of the categorical proposition stated as a condi¬
tion. When St. Paul said : “ if an Angel of God should
come to proclaim another Gospel, do not believe him,”
he did not think that an Angel of God could really lie.
When Joan of Arc said : “ if the Church should command
me to do an impossible thing (such as losing faith in her
voices) I could not obey her,” she did not think, as the
judges of Rouen pretended, that the Church could really
give her an order contrary to that of God. Likewise in
saying : “ if a number should measure the relation of two
incommensurable magnitudes, I would call it an e irra¬
tional number,’ ” I do not mean to say that such a number
really exists.
(b) A distinction must be made between 1. conditional
propositions in the strict sense (of which we are speaking
here) wherein the word if signifies the necessity of a
certain consequence, and 2. conditional propositions
in the broad sense and improperly conditional propositions, in
which the word if signifies a concomittance. Thus the
proposition : “If Peter is silent (on the contrary), his
brother is a chatterbox,” is an improperly conditional pro¬
position which may be reduced to a copulative proposi¬
tion and obeys the same rules. The proposition “ If the
orator so much as opened his mouth, everyone yawned,”
is conditional in the broad sense. Such a proposition is
subject to rules similar to those concerning strictly con¬
ditional propositions, but the conjunction of its two parts
is given as a simple truth of fact, and not as a necessity.
Furthermore, this proposition cannot be true unless both
of its component propositions are verified by fact.
(c) Rule of argumentation. See below, the conditional
syllogism.
(d) Do not confuse the term “ hypothetical proposition ”
with the term “ conditional proposition.” The conditional
io6 LOGIC

proposition is only a kind of hypothetical proposition.

True, it is the most important kind and plays the largest
role in Logic, for it is closely akin to reasoning (since the
affirmation in such a proposition bears on the necessity
of a consequence, it really does nothing but declare the
validity of an inference or a reasoning).
(e) The disjunctive proposition may be reduced to a condi¬
tional proposition,1 for example, the disjunctive proposi¬
tion : “ We must have a leader or our affairs will be mis¬
managed,” may be reduced to two conditional proposi¬
tions : “ If we do not have a leader our affairs will be
mismanaged,” “ If we have a leader, our affairs will not
be mismanaged.”
The causal proposition 2 (“ The human soul is immortal
because it is spiritual ”) and the rational proposition 3 (“ The
human soul is spiritual, therefore it is immortal ”) may be
resolved into a compound of categorical propositions.
The same is true of the relative proposition when it has a
causal signification 4 (“ The human soul which is spiritual
is immortal ”) and of the adversative proposition when it
signifies the negation of a causal relation 6 (“ The human
soul is spiritual but is not united to the body by violence ”)
—that is to say, the spirituality of the human soul does
not cause it to be united to the body by violence. The
causal proposition : “ The human soul is united to the
body by violence because it is spiritual ” would be false.
1 A conjunctive proposition “ No one can serve both God and Mammon at
+he same time ” may also be reduced to a conditional proposition : “ If
anyone serve God, he cannot serve Mammon.”
2 A causal proposition may be resolved into three categorical propositions :
i The human soul is immortal, 2 The human soul is spiritual, 3 The
spirituality of the human soul is the cause of its immortality. It is evident
therefore that the truth of a causal proposition presupposes not only the truth
of the sequence which links its two parts but also the truth of these two
propositions themselves. (That is why a causal proposition cannot be reduced
to a conditional proposition, nor conversely.)
3 A rational proposition is equivalent to an argumentation properly so-
called (enthymeme).
4 In other cases the relative proposition may be reduced to a copulative
proposition : “ The man, whom I see, is running ” = “ I see a man and he is
running.” Again in other cases it may be only apparently compound “ The
leader who gives to every man his due, is obeyed ” = “ A just leader is obeyed,”
—a simple proposition.
6 In other cases an adversative proposition may be reduced to a copulative
proposition : “ He may laugh about it, but I weep ” = “ He laughs about it
and I weep about it.”
 THE PROPOSITION IO7

It is plain that in regard to reasoning, only two

propositions are important to consider : the categorical
proposition and secondly, the conditional proposition (we
say secondly because the conditional proposition itself i pre¬
supposes as logical material the categorical propositions
of which it is constructed ; and 2 signifies and affirms a
conclusion, and therefore is not, like the categorical
proposition, the first element of which the mind makes
use in discovering or establishing a previously unseen con¬
clusion) .

47. RULES CONCERNING OBSCURELY COMPOUND PROPOSI¬

TIONS. These propositions are called “ exponible ” (ex-
ponibiles), that is, capable of being developed, because in
virtue of a term which they contain they may be resolved
into several propositions that “ explain ” or “ develop ”
them.
(1) Exclusive propositions. Example : “ The human Exclusive
proposi¬
species alone is such that evil befalls it more often than good,” tions are
resolved
may be resolved into two propositions : “ The human into two
simple
species is such that evil befalls it more often than good,” propositions.

“ no other species is such that evil befalls it more often than

good.” It is not true unless both of these propositions are
true.
(2) Exceptive propositions. Example : “ Every substance exceptive
proposi¬
except ether can be weighed.” May be resolved into three tions into
three
propositions : “ All substances other than ether can be
weighed,” “ ether is a substance,” “ ether cannot be
weighed.” It is not true unless all three of these proposi¬
tions are true.
(3) Reduplicative propositions. Example : “ The wicked, and redupli¬
cative
as wicked should be hated.” This may be resolved into two propositions
into two.
propositions : “ The wicked are specified as such by a
certain determination (wickedness),” “ that which accrues
to them in virtue of this determination should be hated.”
It is not true unless both propositions are true.

(a) In the example used above the “ redoubling ”

particle, as, is taken in a purely “ specijicative ” manner,
that is, before the S. receives the Pr. the particle brings
its own proper concept to it, viz., the formal reason that
 io8 LOGIC

constitutes it in its species. Thus we say “ that which is

coloured is, as such, a visible object,” “ the prudent man,
inasmuch as he is prudent, acts reasonably in all things.”
(b) The “ redoubhng ” particle is taken reduplicatively
when, before the S. receives the Pr. the particle applies
to the S. a particular determination other than its own
proper concept, which determination is the reason, cause
or condition in virtue of which this Pr. is attributed to
the S. Example : “ Man, as rational, possesses the power
of risibility, as animal, possesses the power of nourish¬
ment, as having grace, may merit the vision of God.”
“ Fire burns in so far as it is applied to combustible
materials.” 1 In such cases the reduplicative proposition
is resolved into two or three propositions, the first of
which expresses, either by a simple connotative term or
by means of the copula is, the presence in the subject of
the cause or condition in question :

(I) Man is rational; (he has rationality).

(II) Everything having rationality possesses the power
of risibility.
(Ill) It is by reason of his rationality that man pos¬
sesses the power of risibility.
(I) Man is an animal.
(II) Every animal has the power of nourishment.
(Ill) It is by reason of his animality that man has the
power of nourishment.
(I) Every man having grace may merit the vision of
God.
(II) Grace is the means by which men may merit
the vision of God.
(I) Fire burns when applied to combustible material;
(II) Application to combustible material is the con¬
dition under which fire burns.

1 We are following the terminology of John of St. Thomas here (Log. Ia P.

Sum., lib. I, cap. XXIV) in preference to Goudin’s (Log. Min. II, P. a. 2, § 3).—
Goudin considers as specificative reduplicatives, propositions such as : homo ut
homo sentit: homo ut homo videbit Deicm ; corpus ut corpus corrumpitur ; justus ut
Justus peccare potest. These propositions are but improperly reduplicative, and are
false \i considered as properly reduplicative. Properly speaking we must say, not
(specificative) : homo quatenus homo sentit, but (reduplicative) : homo quatenus
animal . . . ; homo ut glorificatus . . . ; corpus ut generabile . . . ;
justus ut homo . . . ;
 THE PROPOSITION 109

(c) It is evident from the last two examples that

reduplication may, and in fact most frequently does,
have a restrictive import. Such was the case in the
proposition. “ The wicked, as wicked, should be hated ”
(wherein the particle “as” was taken specificative).
The same is true in the propositions, “ Christ, as man,
was created,” 1 “ The Pope, as doctor of the Church, is
infallible ” (in which the particle “ as ” is taken as
reduplicative). In reduplicative propositions with a restric¬
tive meaning the subject-term has a diminutive substitu¬
tive value.
(.d) Whereas an ordinary negative proposition, e.g.,
“ This man is not avaricious ” is equivalent to an affirma¬
tive proposition wherein the negation falls on the predi¬
cate, e.g., “ This man is non-avaricious.” Nevertheless, it
must be noted that a reduplicative proposition, e.g.,
“ Man as man is not avaricious,” signifying that such a
Pr. is not essential to man, is in no way equivalent to the
reduplicative : “ Man as man is non-avaricious,” signifying
that the absence of this Pr. is essential to man. Man as
man is neither avaricious nor non-avaricious.

A great many errors or misunderstandings arise from the

mistaking of reduplicative propositions for simple or cate¬
gorical propositions, especially when the reduplicative
sense is understood but unexpressed, as it is in many formal
philosophic propositions,2 and inspired sayings, e.g., in
certain of the psalmist’s behests : “ Deleantur peccatores
(ut peccatores) de Libro viventium, et cum justis non scri-
bantur,” 3 etc.
Nevertheless, we must use reduplicative propositions at
every turn be they speculative or practical; for example,
the enemies of our native land must be hated as such, and
loved as men.

1 This proposition may be resolved into three propositions : “ Christ had

a human nature,” “ Human nature is created,” “ It is because of His human
nature that Christ is said to have been created.”
2 See J. Maritain, Introd. to Philos., pp. 252-253.
3 Ps. lxviii. 29.
 I 10 LOGIC

The S 2. Affirmative Propositions and Negative Propositions

(categorical)

trSS2~ 48. DIVISION OF THE PROPOSITION ACCORDING AS THE

ofNative, copula “ is ” composes or divides. From this point of
view propositions are divided into affirmative or negative
according as the copula composes or divides (unites or
separates) the Pr. and the S. Like the division into simple
and compound propositions, this division concerns the form
of the proposition, that is the copula ; but instead of being
made by reason of the different kinds of copulas it is made
by reason of the unifying or divisive signification of the
copula is. In order to settle our terminology let us say that
such a division is made by reason of the quality (i.e., the
essential quality) of the proposition.1

(a) It is very important to note that a proposition is

affirmative or negative by reason of the copula and the
copula alone. Propositions such as “ He who does not
hope is unfortunate ” or “ This judgment is null and not
to the point ” are affirmative propositions.
(b) This division of the proposition into affirmative
and negative is a subdivision of the simple or categorical
proposition. Compound or hypothetical propositions can¬
not be divided in this way. The negation cannot fall on
the gopula “and,” “or,” “if” ; for in such a case it
would destroy the union of the two parts of the proposi¬
tion and consequently the proposition itself. Therefore
every compound proposition as such composes but never
divides. However, we may agree to consider as negative
conditional propositions such as : “ If Peter is a man, he
is not a pure spirit,” because the categorical proposition
expressing the condition is itself negative.
*(c) Mr. Bergson thinks that a negative judgment,
such as, “ this table is not white,” is nothing but a protest
against a possible affirmative judgment, and that it
consequently does not bear fundamentally upon the
thing itself, “ but rather on the (affirmative) judgment ”

1 Kant divides judgments from the point of view of quality into Affirmative,
Negative and Indefinite (the soul is non-mortal). But, as he himself admitted,
from the point of view of form, a proposition such as “ the soul is non-mortal ’*
is an affirmative proposition.
 THE PROPOSITION III

that someone might have made concerning it. As a

consequence he maintains that, in contrast to affirmative
judgments, negative judgments have an essentially “ peda¬
gogical and social ” character.
Even if it were true that every negative judgment
supposes that we have conceived a possible affirmative
judgment, this would be a purely psychological considera¬
tion which would in no way prevent the mind from judg¬
ing the thing itself in making a negative judgment. It is
indeed evident that I cannot assent to an affirmative
judgment without previously rejecting the contradictory
negative, nor assent to a negative judgment without
denying the contradictory affirmative and that, in both
cases, it is to the thing that I declare my thought to be in
conformity. In reality every judgment, whether it be
affirmative or negative, presupposes that we have first
asked ourselves a question, and have brought together
the two objective concepts that we declare are united
or divided in the real, in order that we may construct
them in a proposition. And this bringing together may
be made in the first place in a negative proposition. For
in saying “ essence and existence are not really distinct
in God,” I am not protesting against a possible
maintaining the contrary opinion any more than I am
in saying : “ essence and existence are really distinct in
creatures.” Consideration of an adversary is purely
accidental in both cases, and may come into the second
as well as the first.
Negative propositions are therefore in exactly the same
class as affirmative propositions, and have no more nor
less of a pedagogical and social character than the
latter.

§ 3. Propositions “ De Inesse ” and Modal Propositions

49. DIVISION OF THE PROPOSITION ACCORDING AS THE SJ^tive

COPULA AS SUCH is or is not modified. If we say, for example,
“Man is rational,” “This man is overrun with debts,” deinesse)
we purely and simply attribute a Pr. to a S. These are the
type of proposition that have hitherto been chosen as
 112 LOGIC

examples. We may call them simply attributive propositions :

in Logic they are called propositions de inesse.

This term de inesse signifies that the propositions in

question simply affirm or deny that the Pr. is in the S.
Notice that we are concerned here with the presence
of the Pr. in the comprehension of the S. once the enuncia¬
tion has been constructed by the mind. The logical “ inesse ”
has for its raison d’Stre a real “ inesse,” that is, the presence
of the thing signified by the Pr. in the thing signified
by the S, and this presence itself has for its raison d’Stre
i° either the essence of the subject (in this case the Pr.
is pre-contained in the notion of the S., e.g., rational in
man, or else the S. is pre-contained in the definition of
the Pr., e.g., number in even) : 2° OR an accidental or con¬
tingent determination that it receives (in this case the Pr.
is not pre-contained in the notion of the S.,—e.g., overrun
with debts is not pre-contained in the notion of this man.)
Thus, contrary to Leibnitz’s contention, the logical axiom,
“ Praedicatum inest subjecto ” in no way signifies that every
predicate is pre-contained in the notion of the subject,
that is, that it is present in it by reason of the subject’s
essence (see below, No. 52 a).

But if, on the contrary, we say : “ man is necessarily

rational,” or “ It is possible that this man be overrun with
must be debts,” we not only attribute a Pr. to a S., but we also
dnguished state the mode or the manner in which the copula links the S.
proposi- to the Pr. in question. These propositions deserve especial
study : they are called modal propositions.
a proposi- 50. modal propositions. A modal proposition is a
said to be proposition in which we not only state that a Pr. is found in
it states the SL S., but also state the mode according to which this Pr.

manner in belongs to the S. or is found in it. The word mode signifies

copula in general a determination that affects something (determinatio
p°. to the s. adjacens rei). The determination with which we are con¬
cerned here affects the verbal copula itself, as to the manner in
which it unites or separates the Pr. and the S.

Certain modes affect only the S. of the proposition,

e.g., “ The prudent man is wise.” Others affect only the
 THE PROPOSITION II3

Pr. ; e.g., “ Peter runs fast,” that is, he “ is running fast:'

But it is not by reason of such modes that a proposition
is said to be modal.

How many modes may affect the copula itself and thus
make the proposition to be modal ?
A predicate such as “ ill ” belongs to Peter possibly.
Supposing that Peter is in good health, we would say :
“ Peter can be (est possibiliter) ill.”
On the contrary, a predicate such as “ angel ” cannot
belong to Peter. We say “ Peter cannot be (est impossibiliter)
an angel.”
A predicate such as “ in good health,” belongs to Peter
contingently. Supposing that Peter be in good health, we
would say “ Peter might not be (est gontingenter) in good
health.”
There are
On the contrary, a predicate such as “ man ” belongs to four kinds
Peter necessarily : “ Peter cannot not be (est necessario) a of modes :
possibility,
man.” impos¬
sibility,
contingence
Thus there are only four modes that can affect the copula necessity.
itself:
possibility,
impossibility.
contingence (possibility that it should not be).
necessity (impossibility that it should not be).
It is evident that in every modal proposition two asser¬
tions are to be distinguished : the one (the dictum) concerns
the thing itself, the attribution of the Pr. to the S., the other
(the modus) concerns the manner in which this attribution
is realized (be it in the thing itself or in the mind). To
illustrate what we mean by mode we may say, for example,
“ It is possible that Peter be ill,” “ it is impossible that Peter
be an angel,” “ it is contingent that Peter be in good health,”
“ it is necessary that Peter be a man.”

(a) We shall see in Major Logic that in those cases

wherein the Pr. attributed to the S. is not of the latter’s
essence, we must distinguish again, within each of these
four modes, between two types of modal propositions
that differ in meaning only, and not in oral expression.
This is the distinction between the composite meaning and
 114 LOGIC

the divisive meaning which plays a part of capital im¬

portance in philosophy.
*{b) The impossible maybe reduced to the necessary, and
the possible to the contingent. That is why Aristotle treats of
but two modes, the necessary and the contingent. {Anal.
Pr., I, 9-22.)
* (c) Whereas Aristotle divided propositions in this way :

de inesse or simply attributive

Propositions f contingent mode
modal
{necessary mode

Kant draws the following distinction :

Modality Reality (assertory judgments)
of the - Contingence (problematic judgments)
Judgment Necessity (apodeitic judgments)

By a singular abuse of language, Kant considers simple

attribution itself as a special mode (“ reality ”) ; that is
to say, he considers that case as modal in which there is no
mode affecting the copula (propositions de inesse, which
he calls assertory).
Furthermore, when he speaks of the contingent or neces¬
sary modality of the “judgment ” (and not of the “ pro¬
position ” as the ancient logicians would have done) he
in no way interprets these words in the Aristotelian
sense. “As Sigwart has said {Logik, I, 6, p. 189) . . .
the matter in question for him [Kant] is the subjective
possibility or necessity of the act of judging. When
Aristotle draws the same distinction, [Anal. Pr., I, 2, 246,
31], he speaks of the possibility or necessity of the relation
expressed by the judgment ” (Goblot, Logique, p. 158, note).
Stan. Dominczak’s work on Les Jugements modaux chez
Aristote et les Scolastiques may be profitably consulted on
this subject. (Louvain, ed. de la Revue Neo-Scolastique.)

§ 4. The Subject and Predicate from the Point of View of

Qiiantity
51. DIVISION OF THE PROPOSITION BY REASON OF QUANTITY.
The proposition : “ The triangle has the sum of its angles
 THE PROPOSITION II5

equal to two right angles ” applies to all triangles ; for,

in applying the Pr. to the S. “ triangle,” this proposition
communicates it to all the individuals and to all the
“ inferior ” objective concepts (isosceles triangles, scalene
triangles, etc.) contained under the universal “ triangle.”
But, in applying the Pr. to the S. “ some triangle ” the
propositions “ some triangle is right-angular ” or “ some
triangle is equiangular,” communicate it only to an inde¬
terminate individual, or to a certain category of individuals,
contained under the universal “ triangle.” Finally, in
applying the Pr. to the S. this triangle, the proposition “ this
triangle is drawn with red chalk ” communicates it only to
a certain determinate individual subject. Thus, in applying The
quantity of
the Pr. to the subject-concept, a proposition may com¬ a proposi¬
tion is
municate it either to the infinity of individual subjects its breadth
in relation
contained under the universal subject, or to some of them to the
individual
taken indeterminately, or only to a certain determinate subjects to
which it
individual subject. communi¬
cates the
We shall call this property that the proposition has of Pr. in
applying
communicating the Pr. to a greater or lesser multitude of this Pr. to
the S.
individual subjects in applying it to the S., the quantity
of the proposition. The quantity or extension of the pro¬
position is nothing else than the extension of the subject
as determined by its relation to the Pr.1 (see above, Nos. io
and 25).
From this point of view there are four kinds of proposi¬
tions, according as the subject itself is a
(1) Universal2 or distributive term: “Every man is From the
point of
mortal.” universal proposition ; in relation to the Pr. view of
quantity
mortal the concept man is Taken as communicable to all the proposi¬
tion is
men. either
universal,
(2) Particular term : “ Some man is unjust.” particular particular,
singular, or
proposition ; in relation to the Pr. unjust, the concept man indefinite.

is taken as communicable to an indeterminate individual

(individuum vagum).
(3) Singular term : “ This man is guilty.” singular pro-
1 “ Sicut in naturalibus quantitas rei sequitur materiam, ita in proposi-
tionibus quantitas sequitur subjectum, quod est quasi materia respectu prae-
dicati et copulae ” (John of St. Thomas, Log., p. 18).
2 See the remarks in No. 18, above, on the meaning of the word universal in
Logic.
116 LOGIC

position ; in relation to the Pr. guilty the concept man is

taken as communicable to a single determinate individual.
(4) Indefinite term, that is, without any sign that explicitly
manifests its quantity (which is in reality either universal,
particular or singular) : “ man is mortal,” “ man is unjust.”
indefinite proposition.

(a) In every case the logician should obviously take

an indefinite proposition for what it is in reality, albeit
occultly—that is, as a universal, particular or singular
proposition.
However, in some cases, for example : “ Man is a
species of the genus animal,” “ Man is the noblest of
creatures,” “ The circumference is a line drawn through
a series of points equidistant from the centre,” an indefi¬
nite proposition whose subject is an unrestricted universal
nature may be treated as a singular. In such cases the
universal subject is taken precisely as one ; for it is taken
not according to the being which it has in things, but
according to the unity which it has in the mind—even
though the predicate attributed to this universal nature
(as in the two examples cited above) applies to the being
which it has in singular things. For any individual
man whatsoever is nobler than all irrational creatures,
and any individual circumference is a line drawn through
a series of points equidistant from the centre (see above,
No. 18, 2, inset). Note in this connection that this is in
general the case of the mathematical universal which
some modern logicians by an odd blunder confuse with
the singular.
*(b) In the singular propositions “ Peter is guilty,”
“ this man is guilty,” the S. precludes all restriction in
order to receive the Pr. just as it does in the universal pro¬
position “ Every man is mortal.” But it does so for an
altogether different reason ; in the former case the S.
(this man, Peter) is not restricted because it is taken as
incommunicable ; in the latter case the S. (every man) is
not restricted because it is taken as communicable to all the
individuals contained under it. Furthermore, the—indirect
or reflex—singular concept “ Peter ” presupposes a
 THE PROPOSITION 117

direct universal concept (man) whose extension is

restricted to a single determinate individual subject,
and thus restricted it stands to the Pr. in the proposition
(see above, No. 18). Wherefore a special place must be
given to singular propositions in the division of proposi¬
tions according to quantity.
Singular propositions are, of course, assimilated to
universals in the theory of the conversion of propositions
(see below, No. 58, c) and in that of the syllogism (see
below, No. 75). Nevertheless, they constitute a distinct
category of propositions, and we would be entirely
mistaken were we to say that they are always assimilable
into universals. Thus, in the opposition of propositions,
singulars do not behave like universals (between two
singulars, one affirmative the other negative, there is the
opposition of contradiction, not of contrariety (see below,
No. 54, 3). In the syllogism itself the assimilation of
singulars into universals which is valid for the Minor,
would obviously be absurd for the Major (see below,
Chap. Ill, footnote 2, p. 190). Finally the expository
syllogism (see below, No. 85) admits of other modes
than does the ordinary syllogism (for example, the second
figure admits of the modes AA : this apostle is Judas,
but this traitor is Judas, therefore this traitor is an apostle)
which shows that the singular premisses are other than a
simple equivalent of universal propositions.
*{c) Mr. Lachelier1 distinguishes propositions such
as “ every man is mortal,” from propositions such as
“ all the members of this family are learned,” or “ all
the apostles were present at the Last Supper.” He calls
the former universals, because they bear immediately
upon a nature concerning which they state a law, and
bear only mediately upon the individuals having this
nature ; he calls the latter collective, because they bear
immediately upon a collection of individuals, and express
a simple fact.
He distinguishes similarly between propositions such
as “ some men are sincere ” and propositions such as
“ some members of this family are learned. He calls
1 J. Lachelier, Etudes sur le Syllogisme, Paris, 1907, P- 4-6 sqq.
118 LOGIC

the first propositions particular, because they bear upon a

nature, restricted this time, indeed, in extension, and
because they imply a sense of right as well as a fact
(human nature is not exclusive of sincerity). He calls
the second partially collective because they treat of a mere
collection of individuals taken partially, and express nothing
more than a fact.
In truth, propositions such as “ all the apostles were
present at the Last Supper ” and “ some members of
this family are learned ” are not collective propositions;
only a proposition whose subject is taken collectively
(in other words, has a suppositio copulata) 1 in relation to
the Pr. is a collective proposition. E.g., “ the apostles
were twelve, some of the members of this family are
ambitious.” Therefore Mr. Lachelier’s terminology must
be rejected. Furthermore, since the division he proposes
is taken not from the form but from the matter of the
proposition, it belongs to Major Logic, not to Minor Logic,
and there is no reason for retaining it here. However,
for clarity’s sake we will say a few words about it.
A universal proposition such as “ Every man is mortal ”
has a double signification : it bears first and imme¬
diately upon the universal nature man taken in all its uni¬
versality, and mediately upon the separate individuals
taken one by one who possess this nature. Thus a proposi¬
tion such as “ some man is sincere ” bears primarily
and immediately upon the universal nature man taken in a
certain indeterminate individual (individuum vagum) 2
and mediately and secondarily upon such and such an
individual having this nature. Now let us consider proposi¬
tions such as “ all men are mortal,” “ some men are
sincere ” ; they also have a double signification, but in the
inverse order; they start with the individuals and proceed
thence to the nature. Although these propositions
(iuniversal, in the first case, particular in the second) are
used in everyday language, for the logician, from the
strict point of view of the art of reasoning, they are
incorrectly formulated. For reasoning is essentially con-
1 See above, No. 27, 5.
2 See above, No. 29, Section 3, Chap. I.
 THE PROPOSITION Iig

cerned with the universal nature communicable to indi¬

viduals, and it is this nature that must be emphasized in
a correct formulation. In the language of Logic, as we
have remarked above,1 universal propositions should be
expressed by : “ Every . . . is . . and not by “ all
. . . are . . . and particulars, by : “ some . . .
is . . not “ some . . . are . . Finally, proposi¬
tions such as those which Mr. Lachelier considers (all
the apostles were at the Last Supper, some members of
this family are learned), belong to the same type as those
preceding (the first universal, the second particular),
but by reason of their matter bear only upon a collection
or series of individuals (taken divisively as Mr. Lachelier
does not see), and are in the same act limited to the
simple expression of a fact. However, Mr. Lachelier is
quite right in saying that if a universal does nothing but
signify a fact, without telling anything about a nature,
then it cannot be used as a true Major in a syllogism of
the first figure (see below, No. 81, 4).
(d) drill. What is the quantity of the following
propositions : “ Every bird has wings, some theologians
are doctors of the Church, no man should despair of
divine mercy, the child concentrates with difficulty, all
these soldiers are French, some angels are damned, the
women and children were massacred by the enemy,
Judas was a traitor.”
(e) Other accidental divisions of the proposition. The
proposition may be divided accidentally, not only by
reason of quantity, but also by reason of matter (necessary,
contingent, impossible, propositions) by reason of quality
(1accidental quality ; true or false propositions) and by
reason of origin (immediate and mediate propositions).
These divisions are studied in Major Logic and Criticism.

52. EXTENSION AND COMPREHENSION OF THE EXTREMES, (i)

To say “ This man is white,” for example, is to identify In every

affirmative
the S. “ this man ” with the Pr. “ white ” or “ having judgment
the mind
whiteness.” But how is this identification made ? Either makes the
Pr. enter
the mind judges that : “ That which I am calling this into the
compre¬
hension of
the S., or
1 No. 18, note 37, and note 39, Section 2, Chap. I
 120 LOGIC

the S.into man, and that which has whiteness is one and the same subject.”
the
extension of Or else it judges (which amounts to exactly the same
the Pr.
thing) that “ There is an identity between the subject
which I call this man, and A subject which has whiteness.”
In the first case the mind says that a same subject has the
note humanity and the note whiteness and thereby makes
whiteness enter into the comprehension of the S. “ this man.”
In every In the second case the mind says that the subject which
negative
judgment has the note humanity is one (of the) subject(s) that pos¬
the mind
excludes sess (es) the note whiteness, and thereby makes “ this man ”
the Pr. from
the com¬ enter into the extension of the Pr. “ white.”
prehension
of the S. or Thus the same act of judging may be made either from
the S. from
the exten¬ the point of view of comprehension (Peter is a saint, he
sion of the
Pr. possesses sanctity) or from the point of view of extension
(Peter is a saint, he is one of those who possess sanctity).
In both cases the mind accomplishes the same act of identify¬
ing the S. and the Pr., and does nothing else than that
expressly (in actu signato). But by that very act and simul¬
taneously with it, although without thinking about it (in
actu exercito), the mind makes the Pr. enter into the com¬
prehension of the S. or else it makes the S. enter into the
extension of the Pr.
Which is the more natural, judgment in extension or judg¬
ment in comprehension ? Judgment in comprehension. . . .
For just as the comprehension of a concept is a more funda¬
mental property than its extension, so, in affirmation, the
logical function of making a Pr. enter into the compre¬
hension of a S. is more fundamental than the function of
making a S. enter into the extension of a Pr. Wherefore
in the theory of the proposition, logicians say that the Pr.
is in the S. (Praedicatum inest Subjecto) or that the Pr. belongs
(inrdpxei) to the S.
*(a) In this instance the word comprehension does not
designate the comprehension of the concept which serves as
the subject of the proposition taken in itself1 ; for example,
it does not designate the comprehension of the concept
“ man.” It refers to this concept, e.g., “ this man,”
in so far as it is used as subject of the proposition,2 and it
1 See above, No. io.
! See above, Nos. 18, 43 and 49.
 THE PROPOSITION 12 I

designates the sum of the notes that belong to this S. de

jure or de facto, necessarily or contingently, in virtue of the
concept itself or by accident. Thus in saying “ This man is
rational,” “ This man is sanguine,” I make the Pr. :
“ rational ” (which is a part of the comprehension of the
concept “ man ”) and the Pr. “ sanguine ” (which is not
a part of the comprehension of the concept man) enter into
the comprehension of the S. man. Likewise in saying “ Caesar
was the victor at Pharsalia ” I make the Pr. “ victor at
Pharsalia ” enter into the comprehension of the S. “ Caesar,”
although it is not a part of the comprehension of the
concept man, neither does it necessarily belong to the
subject Caesar, nor is it precontained in his individual
concept.
The broader sense assumed by the word comprehension
in the expression “ the comprehension of the S. ” must
be very precisely defined. It is because he failed to under¬
stand this, that Leibnitz believed that he could deduce
a whole system of metaphysics from the logical axiom
“ Praedicatum inest subjecto ”—a chimerical metaphysics
according to which all events and all accidents affecting
an individual substance, e.g., Caesar in the course of his
existence (and supposing the relations of this substance
with a multitude of others and finally with the whole
universe), are inscribed beforehand in the notion or in
the essence of this individual substance or “ monad,”
each “ monad ” being thus a “ mirror ” or view of the
entire universe.1 As an immediate consequence whatever
Leibnitz may do, there is really no contingence or liberty
in the world.
*(b) We must remember that in every affirmative
proposition the Pr. is as a form that determines the S.
(see above, No. 43), and the S. is as a matter that receives
the Pr. Therefore the S. as such is subjected to the Pr.
(subjectum subjicitur praedicato) ; this is the logical relation
which characterizes essentially the one and the other. It
is of the essence of the S.2 to be under the Pr. as matter
under a form ; it is of the essence of the Pr. to be applied

1 Cf. Leibnitz, Discours de Mitaphysique ; Lettres a Arnauld.

2 We are speaking here of the logical subject. See above, No. 43, inset.
 122 LOGIC

to the S. as a form,to a matter. Thence we see that the

act of the mind in forming a proposition, or in judging,
consists necessarily either in bringing the Pr. as form over
upon the S. as matter or, which amounts to the same
thing, bringing the S., as matter, under the Pr. as form.
In the first case the mind makes the Pr. enter into the com¬
prehension of the S., saying that whiteness is one (of the)
note(s) of “ this man,” in the second case it makes the S.
enter into the extension of the Pr., saying “ this man ” is
one (of the) thing(s) having whiteness.
It is therefore plain that an (affirmative) judgment is
not the pure and simple identification of two concepts, but
is rather the identification of a concept functioning as S.
and a concept functioning as Pr., so that, in establishing
this identification, the mind must necessarily look upon
things either from the point of view of extension or the
point of view of comprehension.
*(c) Since these two ways of making a same judgment
are absolutely equivalent, the logician, in reflecting upon
the judgment from the point of view of his art (which is
not the same thing as judging naturally) is free to consider
every proposition either from the point of view of exten¬
sion, or from the point of view of comprehension.
However, if he wishes to simplify things, by considering
the point of view of extension exclusively, as did Leibnitz
and his school, he would risk misunderstanding the natural
processes of the reason which actually employs the point
of view of comprehension as well as that of extension,
according to the case (and even makes more frequent
use of the point of view of comprehension). Above all,
he would run the extremely serious risk of falsifying the
whole theory of judgment.

(2) Whether the mind judges from the point of view of

extension, or from the point of view of comprehension, the
logical properties concerning the extension and the com¬
prehension of S. and Pr. in the proposition evidently remain
the same. We shall first consider the logical properties that
concern the extension of the predicate.
A. First let us take the case of an affirmative proposition (s).
 THE PROPOSITION 123

Given the affirmative proposition : “ This man is

white.” In forming this proposition, we make the Pr.
“white” enter into the comprehension of the S. “this-
man ” or, which amounts to the same thing, we make the
S. “ this man ” enter into the extension of the Pr. “ white.”
But from the fact that the Pr. “ white ” enters into the
comprehension of “ this man ” it is evident that the com¬
prehension of “ this man ” is taken in this proposition
as being greater than that of “ white.” From the Pr.
“ white ” the S. “ this man ” receives one of the deter¬
minations which characterize it, a determination which is
added to those which it already has ; therefore its com¬
prehension is greater than the Pr.’s, for, besides the notes
it has as “ this man,” it also has those given it by the Pr.
“ white.”
As a matter of fact it happens that in certain cases the
comprehension of the S. is equal to that of the Pr.1 Such
is the case in the universal affirmative propositions that
are called convertible, that is, such that the S. and Pr. may
be interchanged without changing the quantity of the
proposition and without the newly formed proposition’s
ceasing to be true 2 : “ Every man is a rational animal.”
Rational animal has the same comprehension as man, and
I may say with truth : “ Every rational animal is a man.”
But it is by reason of the matter of the proposition that this
is so, not by reason of its form or of the logical relations
it implies. In any case, the comprehension of the S. is
never smaller than that of the Pr. so that we may write :

Compr. S. > Compr. Pr.

Since the comprehension and the extension of a term are

in inverse ratio to each other, to say that the S. has a
greater comprehension than the Pr. is also to say that the

1 In the propositions which are called unnatural, because the natural order
of the S. and Pr. is reversed (propositiones innaturales, indirectae, violentae) e.g. :
“ some man is Peter,” the comprehension of the S. seems to be smaller than
that of the Pr. But in reality the S. some man stands for a single individual and
therefore has a comprehension equal to the Pr.’s.
2 This new proposition is just as true as the first, but it affirms another
truth. It is one thing to say “ Every man is a rational animal ” and another
to say “ Every rational animal is a man,” just as it is one thing to say A
belongs to all B ” and another to say “ B belongs to all A.” Cf. No. 58c.
 124 LOGIC

S. has a smaller extension than the Pr. This may be directly

verified by considering a proposition which has been
thought from the point of view of extension. From the
very fact that the S. “ this man ” enters into the extension
of the Pr. “ white,” the extension of the Pr. “ white ” is
taken in this proposition as greater than that of the S.
“ this man ” ; the S. “ this man ” is brought under the
Pr. “ white ” as one of the things to which this Pr. is
applied in order to determine them, therefore its extension
is smaller than the Pr.’s.
It does happen in certain cases (convertible propositions :
“ man is a rational animal”), that the extension of the
Pr. is equal to that of the S.1 But this occurs by reason of
the matter of the proposition, not by reason of its logical
constitution or form, vi propositionis. Considering only the
logical function of the Pr. with respect to the S., or the
logical structure of the proposition, this latter places the
Pr. before the S. as a term of greater extension comes
before a term of lesser extension.2 In any case the exten¬
sion of the Pr. is never smaller than that of the S., so that
we may write :
ext. Pr. > ext. S.
In every Since, in every affirmative proposition, the logical
affirmative
proposition function of the Pr. is to be applied to the S. as a universal
the Pr. is
taken form to a matter,3 while the S. stands, in the proposition,
particularly«
for the singular subjects in which the Pr. is realized as a
universal concept, it is evident that, when the Pr. is said
of the S. or identified with it by the mind, it is not taken
according to all its extension or universality, that is, as realized
in all the singulars contained under it. In the proposition
“ Every man is mortal,” I identify all the matter contained
under the universal man (all the singular subjects in which
this universal is realized) with something determined by

1 Likewise true in an unnatural proposition, e.g., “ some man is Peter.”

Since the S. some man stands for a single individual in such a proposition,
its extension is not greater than, but equal to, the Pr.’s.
2 That is the reason why this proposition “ man is a rational animal ”
does not in itself tell us that the extension of “ rational animal ” is equal to
that of “ man.” In order to say that, we would have to have recourse to
another proposition, e.g., the exclusive proposition : “ man alone is a rational
animal.”
3 See above, No. 43.
 THE PROPOSITION I25

the form or quality Mortal, but certainly not with all the
matter contained under this universal form itself, nor with
all the singular subjects in which “ Mortal ”(ity) is realized.
In every Affirmative
the Pr. is taken
PARTICULARLY.

*(a) To speak more precisely we should say that in

every affirmative proposition, the Pr. as such has a
particular “ substitutive value ” (supponit particulariter,
confuse tantum seu disjuncte).1 In the example given,
mortal “ stands for ” “ some mortal.” To forget this
and say, e.g., Man = Mortal, therefore Mortal = Man,
would be a tremendous blunder.
*(b) In fact, it sometimes happens—in convertible
propositions 2 for instance : “ Every man is a rational
animal ”—that the Pr. has the same extension as the S.
(there are no rational animals other than man). Never¬
theless, in this case, the Pr. is not taken according to all its
extension (which is in fact equal to the S.’s) in being
said of the S. The Pr. is never taken in all its universality
in being affirmed of the S., for then it would have to be said
according to all the singulars for which it stands as a universal,
and to all the singulars for which the S. stands in the
proposition. I may very well say : “ Every man is rational,”
but I cannot say “ every man is every rational being,”
which would imply that “ every man is all rational
beings.” 3 It is important to understand that, although
the extension of the Pr. in a convertible proposition is no
greater than that of the subject (non est in plus) (and thus
its extension is not restricted when made to coincide
with that of the S.), nevertheless, in its function of Pr. in
an affirmative proposition it continues to be taken par¬
ticularly in order to be attributed to the subject.
B. Now let us consider negative propositions. Here the And in
every
Pr. and S. are separated from each other ; this separation negative
proposition,
implies that the Pr. does not constitute any of the notes of the Pr. is
taken
UNIVERS¬
1 See above, No. 27. _ ... ALLY.
3 Every proposition in which the subject is attributed its own definition is
a convertible proposition.
3 Gf. St. Thomas, in Pcrihermeneias, lib. I, cap. VII, lect. 10, n. 23.
 126 LOGIC

comprehension of the S., and, at the same time, that the S.

is not one of the things to which the Pr. may be applied.
Therefore the S. is excluded from the whole extension of the
Pr. In the proposition “ Man is not a pure spirit,” I separate
from all the matter contained under the universal man the
universal form, pure spirit, and thus all the matter con¬
tained under universal form.

In every negative proposition

the predicate is taken
UNIVERSALLY.

Precisely speaking, in every negative proposition the

Pr. has a universal “substitutive value” (suppositio);
pure spirit “ stands for ” any pure spirit, in this case.

The above survey suffices to show the futility of the

quantification of the Pr. proposed by the English logician
Hamilton. It is nonsense to want to “ quantify ” the Pr.,
that is to say, to manifest explicitly its quantity (see below
No. 83) since it is of the very essence of the Pr. in virtue of its
logical relation to the S., to be taken particularly in every
affirmative, and universally in every negative.1

EXTENSION AND COMPREHENSION OF THE PREDICATE

in every in every
AFFIRMATIVE PROPOSITION NEGATIVE PROPOSITION

Particularly Universally j as to
EXTENSION
The predicate is
taken

1
Totally Partially j- as to
COMPREHENSION
(Considered
divisively)

(3) Now let us consider the comprehension of the predi¬

cate.

1 For the same reason it is nonsense to accuse traditional Logic of having

paved the way for the theory of Hamilton by emphasizing the properties that
concern the extension of the Pr., as if the logical function of the Pr. in the
proposition, and what it implies as to the extension, or the latter were the
result of a more or less arbitrary theory, and did not depend upon the very
structure and essence of the proposition.
 THE PROPOSITION 127

Man is mortal ” : all the notes constituting mortality

are found in man. That is to say that

in every affirmative proposition In every

affirmative
the predicate is taken the Pr. is
taken in all
in all its comprehension. its com¬
prehension,
On the other hand, if I say : “ Man is not a pure spirit,”
not all the constitutive notes of a pure spirit are thereby
excluded from man (man like a pure spirit is a substance).
Therefore
in every negative proposition but in every
negative
predicate is taken
the only a part
of its com¬
only in a part of its comprehension prehension
(considered
—if its notes be considered divisively. divisively)
is taken.

(For the Pr. is taken in all its comprehension when its notes
are considered collectively).

(a) Extension of the subject. As we have seen above

(No. 51) the subject is, by definition, taken universally
in every universal proposition and particularly in every
PARTICULAR PROPOSITION.
In every singular proposition, e.g., “ This man is
mortal,” the subject-term signifies a (reflex) singular
concept, which in turn presupposes a (direct) universal
concept. The (universal) direct concept is taken only in
a part of its extension, being restricted to a single determinate
individual, but the reflex or indirect (singular) concept
itself is obviously taken in all its extension ; therefore in the
theory of the syllogism and the theory of conversion of
propositions, singular propositions are practically equi¬
valent to universal propositions.
On the other hand, every., indefinite proposition is
equivalent either to a universal (in necessary matter,
when the Pr. must necessarily or must necessarily not belong
to the S.) or to a particular (in contingent matter when the
Pr. may or may not belong to the S.), or even to a singular
(when the subject stands for a single determinate indi¬
vidual : “ the man is come ”).
(b) Comprehension of the subject. The S. is taken in all its
comprehension, that is, with all its constitutive notes, in
 128 LOGIC

every proposition (except reduplicative propositions imply¬

ing restriction).
(c) The use of these notions. We will encounter these
notions concerning the comprehension and, especially,
the extension of terms (in the proposition) in several
important theories. As we have already remarked 1
because of the fact that we handle abstract (and there¬
fore universal) concepts, we cannot think correctly with¬
out taking their extension into account. That is why the
study of the extension of terms plays so important a
role in Logic (the extension of the subject in the theory
of the opposition of propositions, the extension of the two
extremes in the theory of conversion and, above all, in the
theory of reasoning). Not that the logician demands that
this study reveal the very essence of discursive thought,
that would be absurd ; but he does ask that it fix certain
conditions indispensable for the legitimate use of this
thought.
(d) drill. How are the subject and predicate taken
from the point of view of comprehension and extension
in the following propositions : “ All power is weak,
unless it be united, Peace is good of itself, I am not a
great prophet, Wolves eat gluttonously, No miser is at
peace with God, Some fruits are poisonous, A triangle is
a three-sided figure, My friend is gone, Some boisterous
people are not brave, This diplomat is renowned as a
dancer.”

G. THE OPPOSITION OF PROPOSITIONS

53. general notion of opposition. The two proposi¬

tions, “ Man is fallible ” and “ Man is not fallible,” are
constructed of the same terms, but they cannot subsist
Logical together in the mind : they are repugnant to each other.
opposition
or the We say that propositions exclude or are repugnant to each
opposition
of pro¬ other, when one affirms and the other denies the same Pr.
positions
is the of the same S. This is
affirmation
and nega¬
tion of the LOGICAL OPPOSITION
same Pr. in
regard to or the opposition of proposition, which we define as the affirma-
the same S.

1 See above, No. 18.

 THE PROPOSITION 129

tion and negation of the same Pr. in regard to the same S.

(affirmatio et negatio, ejusdem de eodem). Evidently it will be
greatly to the logician’s interest to make an inquiry into
the laws that govern this opposition. For they will enable
him to know, in the face of two propositions constructed
of the same terms, when to proceed from the affirmation
of one to the negation of the other and inversely ; and when
to say that if the one is true the other is false, or if the one is
false the other is true.
As we have seen, propositions are affirmative or nega¬
tive as to their form (or “ essential quality ”) ; universal
or particular as to their quantity (see above, Nos. 48 and 51).
For purposes of abridgement and in order to construct
mnemonic formulas, logicians have agreed to designate
propositions by means of the following abbreviations :

AFFIRMATIVE UNIVERSAL propositions Capital A

means yes,
E means no
by the letter A (first vowel of the word afprmo) ; universally.
Capital I
means yes,
AFFIRMATIVE PARTICULAR propositions O means no,
particularly.

by the letter I (second vowel of the same word) ;

NEGATIVE UNIVERSAL propositions

by the letter E (first vowel of nego) ;

NEGATIVE PARTICULAR propositions

by the letter O (second vowel of the same word). We shall

use these letters with this conventional signification from
now on. The following mnemonic formulas provide a
convenient way of remembering what these letters A, E,
I, O mean.
Asserit A, negat E, verum generaliter ambo,
Assent /, negat 0, sedparticulariter ambo.

54. THE THREE kinds of opposition, (i) Given the (A)

proposition : 44 Every man is blond. This proposition
affirms the Pr. blond of the (objective) concept man taken in
its universality. How can this Pr. be denied of this S. so as
to purely and simply destroy the proposition in question ?
By purely and simply saying : it is not true that every man
 130 LOGIC

is blond, that is by denying that the Pr. blond belongs to the

concept man taken in its universality, by constructing the
(O) proposition, “ Some men are not blond,” or, as is pre¬
ferable in Logic : “ some man is not blond.” This is the
opposition of
t CONTRADICTION

in which one proposition purely and simply denies what another

proposition affirms, and in which there is absolutely nothing
wherein the two propositions can agree.
(2) The Pr. of this same proposition, “ every man is
blond,” may be denied of the S. in another way : by deny¬
ing not only that the Pr. blond belongs to the concept man
taken in its universality, but also that it belongs to the concept
man taken in any way whatsoever, by saying : “ It is not only
false that every man is blond, but it is also false that some
men are blond ”—in other words, by constructing the (E)
proposition : “ no man is blond.” This is the opposition of

CONTRARIETY,

in which a proposition denies not only what the other affirms,

but also what a less extended proposition would affirm. It
follows that in this type of opposition there is something in
which the two opposed propositions may agree, namely,
falsity ; for the two propositions “ every man is blond,”
“ no man is blond,” are equally false—the truth being that
some men are blond and others are not.
(3) Now let us take the (I) proposition : “ some man
is blond.” We may oppose it by contradiction, by purely
and simply destroying it, that is by constructing the (E)
proposition : “ no man is blond.” But we may also oppose
it in another way, by constructing the (O) proposition :
“ some man is not blond ” (which no longer denies the
proposition “ Some man is blond,” but denies the more
extended proposition: “Every man is blond”). This is
the opposition of
SUB-CONTRARIETY,

in which a proposidon denies not exactly what the other

affirms, but rather what a third more extended proposition
would affirm. Consequently, in this kind of opposition,
 THE PROPOSITION 131

there is something in which the two opposed propositions

maY agree—namely truth : for these two propositions “ some
man is blond,” “ some man is not blond ” are equally true.

* (a) There is the opposition of contradiction between the

two singular propositions : “ Peter is wise,” “ Peter is
not wise,” for the second proposition purely and simply
destroys the first.
*{b) The same is true of two propositions such as :
“ Man is the noblest of creatures,” and “ Man is not the
noblest of creatures.” Although that which is attributed
to the universal subject in these propositions relates to
the being which it has in things, the universal subject
itself is taken according to the being which it has in the
mind—that is, precisely inasmuch as it is one (under the con¬
dition of unity which belongs to it in the mind alone).1
That is why propositions such as these, whose universal
subject is considered as one, behave like singular proposi¬
tions from the point of view of opposition (they admit
of but one kind of opposition, the opposition of con¬
tradiction, which does not suppose a difference in the
quantity of the propositions).
But apart from these two cases it is clear from the fore¬ There are
three kinds
going that two propositions are of logical
opposition:
contradic¬
CONTRADICTORY tion,
contrariety,
sub¬
when they have the same S. and Pr.2 and are opposed contrariety,
to which
not only in quality (the one affirmative, the other negative), may be
added
but also in quantity (the one universal, the other particular) ; subalterna¬
tion.
CONTRARY

1 See above, No. 18 (2), inset, and No. 51a.—“ Quandoque attri-
buitur aliquid universali sic considerato, quod scilicet apprehensitur ab intel-
lectu ut unum, tamen id quod attribuitur ei non pertinet ad actum intellectus,
sed ad esse, quod habet natura apprehensa in rebus quae sunt extra animam,
puta si dicatur quod homo sit dignissima creaturarum. Hoc enim convenit
naturae humanae etiam secundum quod est in singularibus. Nam quilibet
homo singularis dignior est omnibus creaturis irrationalibus ; sed tamen
omnes homines singulares non sunt units homo extra animam, sed solum in
acceptione intellectus ; et per hunc modum attribuitur ei praedicatum, scilicet
ut uni rei ” (St. Thomas, in Perihermeneias, lib. I, c. VII, lect. 10, n. 9).
2 In two opposed propositions not only must the S. and Pr. be the same, but
the S. must have the same kind of “ substitutive value ” or suppositio (material,
logical, or real). However, the S. may sometimes pass from a real particular
suppositio to a real universal suppositio (substitutive value) or inversely.
 when they have the same S. and Pr., and are opposed in
quality, but not in quantity—both being universals.

SUB-CONTRARY

A is the when they have the same S. and Pr. and are opposed in
contradic¬
tory of O, I quality only, not in quantity, both being particulars.
the con¬
tradictory There is therefore opposition of contradiction between A
of E.
and O, and between E and I ; opposition of contrariety
A is the
contrary of between A and E, opposition of sub-contrariety between I
E, I the
sub- and O. These facts are presented in the following scheme
contrary
of O. which is called the “ square of opposition.”

Aff

Irmo

I is the
subaltern
I is said to be the subaltern of A, O the subaltern of E.
of A, O the
subaltern
Subalternation does not really constitute logical opposition,
of E. but only a relation between superior (a more universal
proposition) and inferior (a less universal proposition).
 THE PROPOSITION 133

A universal proposition and its subaltern are not opposed Contradic¬

tion is the
in the proper sense of the word. On the contrary, for the perfect
type of
subalternate (I or O) does but express in a partial or opposition.

diminished fashion the same thing as the subalternant (A or

E). Therefore we must say that there are the three kinds
of logical opposition : contradiction, contrariety and sub¬
contrariety, although, in order to unite in one same classi¬
fication all the kinds of relation that may exist between two
propositions having the same S. and Pr. we often say that
there are four kinds of logical opposition : contradiction,
contrariety, sub-contrariety and subalternation. But in this
case the word opposition in so far as it concerns sub¬
alternation is understood in an improper sense.
Which is the greatest or strongest of these different kinds of
opposition—that in which the negation is the most destruc¬
tive ? It is not, as one might think at first sight, the opposi¬
tion of contrariety but the opposition of
CONTRADICTION

in which the negative proposition is the pure negation of

the affirmative proposition. The opposition of contrariety, in
which a proposition denies not only what the other affirms,
but also what a less extended proposition would affirm, is
really less negative than the opposition of contradiction, for
in passing from a proposition to its contrary the subject
continues to be taken universally ; wherefore these two pro¬
positions have something in common, namely falsehood.

*(a) Note that the definition of opposition: “the

affirmation and negation of the same Pr. in regard to the
same S.” applies perfectly to the first three kinds of
logical opposition recognized by the logician, if by S. we
understand precisely the word which is the subject of the
proposition. In the opposition of sub-contrariety “ some
man is wise,” “ some man is not wise,” the Pr. “ wise ”
is affirmed and denied of the same word subject, “ some
man.” If, on the contrary, we understand by S. the
things for which a word stands, then this is a definition
by the most typical or eminent case : it is completely
verified only by the most perfect type of opposition,
namely contradiction. In order to apply this definition
 134 LOGIC

to the opposition of contrariety, we must extend it and

give it a certain leeway (for in this type of opposition the
S. of the negative proposition stands not only for the
subjects of which the affirmative is false, but may also
stand for other subjects of which the affirmative would
be true—and inversely). And we must understand this
definition in an even broader sense in order to apply it
to the opposition of sub-contrariety (for in this case the
S. of the negative proposition may possibly not stand for
the same subject for which the S. of the affirmative
proposition stands). As for subalternation, it is only for
reasons of symmetry that logicians have admitted it into
the Square of Opposition. This blind window does not
figure in the theory of opposition formulated by Aristotle.
*{b) In regard to conditional propositions, we may say
by analogy that there is 1 Contradiction between “ if I
were rich I would be happy ” and “ it is not true that if
I were rich I would be happy ” (that is : “ if I were rich
I might not be happy ”) and contradiction between “ if I
were rich I would not be happy ” and “ it is not true that
if I were rich I would not be happy ” (that is “ if I were
rich I might be happy ”) ; 2 Contrariety between “ if
I were rich I would be happy ” and “ if I were rich I
would not be happy ” ; 3 Subcontrariety between “ if I
were rich I might not be happy ” and “ if I were rich
I might be happy ”54 Sub alternation between “if I were
rich I would be happy ” and “ if I were rich I might be
happy ” and also between “ if I were rich I would not be
happy ” and “ if I were rich I might not be happy.”

Law of Con¬ 55. THE LAWS OF OPPOSITION, (i) CONTRADICTION. Two

tradictories :
if one is contradictory propositions cannot be at the same time true, nor
true the
other is at the same time false. If one is true, the other is necessarily
false, if one
is false, the false ; if one is false, the other is necessarily true. “ Some
other is true.
man is blond ” is true : therefore “ no man is blond ” is
false. “ Every man is just ” is false : therefore “ some man
is not just ” is true.
Law of Con¬ (2) contrariety. Two contraries cannot be at the same
traries : if
one is true time true, but they may be at the same time false. If one is
the other is
false; but if true, the other is necessarily false ; but if one is false, the
 THE PROPOSITION 135

other may also be false.1 “ Every man is just ” is false, but one is false
the other
that does not prove that “ no man is just ” is true. may equally
be false.
(3) sub-contrariety. Two sub-contraries cannot be at
Law of Sub¬
the same time false, but may be at the same time true.2 contraries :
if one is
If one is false, the other is necessarily true ; but if one is false the
other is
true, the other may also be true. “ Some man is just ” is true, true; but
if one is
but that does not prove that “ some man is not just ” is false. true the
other may
(4) sub alternation. Subalterns obey the following law : be equally
true.
If A is true, I is true ; if A is false, I may be true. If I is true,
A may be false, if I is false, A is false. Likewise for E and O.
These laws are evidently of very great practical value.
We must be especially careful not to confuse the opposition
of contradiction with the opposition of contrariety. It does
not necessarily follow from the falsity of a proposition that the
contrary proposition is true. For instance, because the pro¬
position “ Every religion is good,” is false, it does not follow
that the proposition “ No religion is good ” is true ; for,
on the contrary, it is false. Nor is the truth of the proposi¬
tion : “No sin may be avoided without the help of grace ”
consequent upon the falsity of the proposition : “ Every sin
may be avoided without the help of grace ” (see No. 56,
the opposition of modal propositions).
*(a) Note that the contradictory of a copulative pro¬
position is a disjunctive. Example : “ Every rich man
is sad and honoured.” Contradictory “ Some rich man
is not sad or not honoured.” Actually if this disjunctive is
false, the copulative is true, and if either one of its members
is true, the copulative is false.
*[b) The opposition of contradiction and future contingencies.
If a proposition is true, its contradictory is false ; if a
proposition is false, its contradictory is true. But a
proposition concerning the contingent future is neither
determinately true nor determinately false (see above, No. 41 b),
1 In necessary matter, that is when the Pr. is of the essence of the S. two contrary
propositions cannot be at the same time false. Ex. : “ Every man is mortal,”
“ No man is mortal.” In such a case (but only in such a case) we may conclude
to the falsity of one contrary from the truth of the other—as in the opposition
of contradiction.
* In necessary matter, that is, when the Pr. is of the essence of the S., two sub¬
contrary propositions cannot be at the same time true. Example : " Some
man is mortal,” “ some man is not mortal.” In such a case (but only in such a
case) we may conclude from the truth of one sub-contrary to the falsity of the
other—as in the opposition of contradiction.
136 LOGIC

so that its contradictory is neither determinately true nor

determinately false. For instance, in speaking of some
future event, such as a naval battle, if we said : “ there
will be—there will not be—a naval battle to-morrow,”
we could not say that since these two propositions are
contradictory , one of them is actually false and the other
is actually true. All that we can affirm is that they
exclude each other indeterminately. On the supposition that
either one of them is true, the other is false, and inversely.
But at the moment neither one of the two (this one rather
than that one) can be said to be determinately true, nor
the other rejected as false. For at present neither one
nor the other is true or false. Discourses are true, says Aristotle,
recalling his definition of truth, in so far as they are conformed
to things. It is evident then that when an event does not
yet exist and does not even exist as pre-formed in its cause
since it is contingent, no discourse about this event can be
either true or false, nor can we say that since one of the
opposed discourses is true, the other is false, or inversely.1
*{c) Does the opposition of propositions give rise to
immediate inferences ? (see below, No. 68).
*{d) Modern criticism of the theory of sub alternation (see
below, No. 84).
(e) drill. (1) Indicate the type of opposition existing
between the following propositions :
Every rich man is selfish, no rich man is selfish.
Every mammal has hairy tegument ; a certain mammal
does not have hairy tegument.
No philosopher has erred, some philosopher did not err.
Some soldiers fled, no soldier fled.
Some mammal has wings, some mammal does not
have wings.
Some man is a liar, every man is a liar, etc., etc.
(2) Given the following propositions : Every truth
should not be told, some severity is necessary. No bird is
viviparous, some philosophers were not virtuous. Indicate
1 Hamelin, Le Systeme d'Aristote (Alcan, Paris, 1931), p. 167. “ The question
of knowing whether or not there are contingent futures is quite another thing ” ;
adds Mr. Hamelin, “ if there are any, the doctrine of Aristotle upon the applica¬
tion of the principle of contradiction to these futures, is the only correct and
rational one.” Cf. Aristotle, Perihermeneias, chap. IX, and St. Thomas’s
masterly commentary, lect. 13 and 14.
 THE PROPOSITION 137

their contradictions, contraries, sub-contraries and

subalterns.
*56. THE OPPOSITION OF MODAL PROPOSITIONS. In a
modal proposition there are two qualities to be considered :
that of the mode, and that of the “ dictum,” that is, of the
enunciation itself that unites or separates the Pr. and S.
Thus in the proposition : “ It is possible that Peter will
not come,” the mode is affirmative, the dictum is negative.
Similarly there are two quantities to be considered in
modal propositions : that of the dictum and that of the
mode. Necessary and impossible modes denote universality
(the thing in question must always happen or can never
happen) ; possible and contingent modes denote particularity
(the thing in question may sometimes happen, or may
sometimes not happen).
(1) Let us first abstract from the quantity of the dictum and
suppose the singular S. : “ that Peter be cured,” for instance.
Then we shall have only the quantity of the mode, the
quality of the mode, and the quality of the dictum to consider.

Granted that “ impossible ” is equivalent to “ not

possible,” and consequently to a negative mode we may
say that if both the mode and the dictum are affirmative
the proposition is purely and simply affirmative, and that
the same is true if both are negative ; if the mode is
affirmative and the dictum negative, or inversely, the
proposition is purely and simply negative.

(Aff.) (Aff.)
Necessary that it be = Aff.
(Aff.) (Neg.)
Necessary that it not be — Neg.
(Aff.) (Aff.)
Possible that it be = Aff.
(Aff) (Neg.)
Possible that it not be = Neg.
(Neg.) (Aff.)
Impossible that it be = Neg.
(Neg.) (Neg.)
Impossible that it not be = Aff.
138 LOGIC

It is clear, on the other hand, that the following

combinations1
Impossible that it not be 1 are equal to Necessary that it be
Not possible that it not be J (Affirm, univ.)
Likewise the combinations
Necessary that it not be) are equal to Impossible that it be
Not possible that it be J (Neg. univ.)
The combinations
Not impossible that it be 1 are equal to Possible that it be
Not necessary that it not be J (Affirm, partic.)
And the combinations
Not necessary that it be )I are equal to Possible that it not
Not impossible that it not be j be (Neg. Partic.)
consequently we may represent the opposition of modal
propositions whose S. is singular in the following schema :
 THE PROPOSITION 139

(2) Now, taking the quantity of the “ dictum ” into account we

have the following outline.
In the example we are using, (i) and (2) are false ; their
contradictories (3) and (4) are true, (5) is true, e.g., a man
who studies the first principles of mathematics must neces¬
sarily be a metaphysician ; their contradictories (7) and
(8) are false.

(a) The proposition (5) being subalternated to (1), it

follows that :
If (1) is true, (5) must be true. If (5) is true, (1) may be false.
If (1) is false, (5) may be true. If (5) is false, (1) must be false.

Likewise :
If (2) is true, (6) must be true. If (6) is true, (2) may be false.
If (2) is false, (6) may be true. If (6) is false, (2) must be false.
140 LOGIC

Likewise :
If (7) is true, (3) must be true. If (3) is true, (7) may be false.
If (7) is false, (3) may be true. If (3) is false, (7) must be false.

Similarly :
If (8) is true, (4) must be true. If (4) is true, (8) may be false.
If (8) is false, (4) may be true. If (4) is false, (8) must be false.

Or again :
If (1) is true, (4) must be true. If (4) is true, (1) may be false.
If (1) is false, (4) may be true. If (4) is false, (1) must be false.

And finally :
If (2) is true, (3) must be true. If (3) is true, (2) may be false.
If (2) is false, (3) may be true. If (3) is false, (2) must be false.

(b) Hence it is evident that if a proposition such as (7)

be false, e.g., “ it is possible for every man (even an illiterate)
not to err if he philosophize,” the proposition (5) is by
that very fact true, “ it is inevitable that certain men err if
they philosophize,” is true ; but the proposition (1) : C£ it is
inevitable that every man err if he philosophize,” is not
true for all that.
In the same way, by the very fact that a proposition
such as (8) is false, e.g., “ all error may be avoided without
the help of revelation,” proposition (6) is true : “ some
error cannot be avoided without the help of revelation.”
But proposition (2) “ no error can be avoided without
the help of revelation ” is not true for all that.
(c) To avoid ambiguity, note that the expression “ it
is impossible that every man run ” signifies “it is not
possible that every man run,” which is the pure and simple
negation or contradiction of (8). Therefore this expression
is not equivalent to (2), but to (6) : “ it is impossible that
certain men run ” ; in order to express (2) we would
have to say : “ it is impossible that any man run,” or
simply “ no man can run.”
(d) Logicians have chosen four vowels, A, E, I, U,
as mnemonic symbols to be used in the opposition of
modal propositions. Their significance is as follows :

A signifies a proposition that is affirmative as to dictum

and as to mode.
 THE PROPOSITION I4I

E signifies a proposition that is negative as to dictum and

affirmative as to mode.
I „ „ that is affirmative as to dictum,
negative as to mode.
U „ „ negative as to dictum and as to
mode.

These may be remembered by means of this line :

E dictum negat, Ique modum, nihil A sed U totum.
Logicians have made up the mnemonic words Purpurea,
Illiace, Amabimus, Edentuli, in each of which

the first vowel designates the mode of Possibility,

the second the mode of Contingency,
the third the mode of Impossibility,
the fourth the mode of Necessity.

There is equivalence (“ equipollence ”) between the four

propositions signified by each mnemonic word, con¬
tradiction between Purpurea and Edentuli, Amabimus
and Illiace (as there is between A and O, I and E, in
propositions de inesse), contrariety between Purpurea and
Illiace, sub-contrariety between Amabimus and Edentuli.
Hence the following schema :

pur It is not possible that' 'it is not possible that il

Peter be not cured Peter be cured

PU it is not contingent it is not contingent u

that Peter be not that Peter be cured
cured
HA) CONTRARIES (e)<

RE it is impossible that it is impossible that a

Peter be not cured Peter be cured

A it is necessary that it is necessary that ce

Peter be cured _ Peter be not cured

A it is possible that' 'it is possible that Peter e

Peter be cured be not cured

MA it is contingent that it is contingen tthat den

Peter be cured Peter be not cured

- (1) SUB-CONTRARIES (o) <
BI it is not impossible it is not impossible tu
that Peter be cured that Peter be not cured

mus it is not necessary it is not necessary that li

that Peter be not Peter be cured
cured
 142 LOGIC

D. THE CONVERSION OF PROPOSITIONS

To convert 57. NOTION OF THE CONVERSION OF PROPOSITIONS. Given

a proposi¬
tion is a proposition expressing a certain truth, e.g., “ No man is a
to invert its
extremes pure spirit ” ; we may express the same truth by inverting the
in such a
mariner as order of the extremes, that is, by making the S. the Pr.,
to express
the same and the Pr. the S., and saying : “ No pure spirit is a man.”
truth.
The first proposition has been converted. The conversion of
a proposition is therefore,
the inversion of the extremes, in such a way as to express
THE SAME TRUTH.

There are There are three kinds of conversion.

three kinds
of con¬ simple (simplex) conversion, when the quantity of the
version :
simple, proposition remains unchanged.
accidental,
by contra¬ accidental conversion (per accidens), when the quantity
position.
of the proposition is changed.
Conversion by contraposition [per contrapositionem) when
a negative particle is added to the interchanged extremes (without
changing the quantity of the proposition).
58. rules of conversion. Since the Pr. of the original
proposition becomes the S. of the new one, it must evidently
keep, as S., the same extension which it had as Pr., otherwise
the truth of the proposition would be impaired. Hence
all the rules of conversion.

These rules rest, then, on the substitutive value (sup-

positio) of the Pr. in the original proposition, and of the
S. in the new one.

(1) Given a negative universal proposition (E), e.g.,

“ No man is a pure spirit.” How is the Pr. taken in negative
propositions Universally (see above, No. 52). Therefore
we convert this proposition by saying : “ No pure spirit is
a man ” (simple conversion).
The truth of the latter proposition implies that of its
subaltern : “ some pure spirit is not a man.” Which means
that E is also converted accidentally (in this case the
converted proposition expresses the same truth as the original
proposition, but in a partial or diminished fashion).
(2) Given a particular affirmative proposition (I), e.g.,
“ Some man is wise.” How is the Pr. taken in affirmative
 THE PROPOSITION 143

propositions ?—Particularly. Therefore the converse of “ I ”

will be : “ Some wise (being) is a man ” (simple con¬
version) .
(3) Given an affirmative universal proposition (A),
e.g., “ Every man is mortal.” For the same reason, it will
be converted into “ some mortal is a man ” (accidental
conversion).
But it may also be converted by contraposition : “ Every
non-mortal is a not-man.”
(4) Finally, given a particular negative proposition (O), E may be
converted
e.g., “ Some man is not just.” May we convert it by saying : in two
ways;
“ Some just (being) is not (a) man ” ? No, for in the simply or
accidentally,
original proposition the negated Pr. “ just ” signified just A, acci¬
dentally or
man (it “ stood for ” just man: some man is not (a) just by contra¬
position.
(man) ). I admits
but one:
But in the new proposition, on the contrary, “ some just simple
conversion,
(being) is not (a) man,” the S. “ some just (being) ” does and O,
conversion
not “ stand for ” just man, but for some other being, e.g., by contra¬
position.
God or some angel. (It does not “ stand for ” just man.)
This new proposition does not express the same truth as the
first—nor is it its converse. Hence it follows that O may
be converted only by contraposition, “ Some now-just
(being) is not not-man,” i.e., “ some non-just (being) is a
man.”
Logicians have summed up these rules in two mnemonic
lines :
Simpliciter fEcI convertitur, EvA per accid,
AstO per contrap ; sic Jit cornersio tota.

(the words fEcI, EvA, AstO are meaningless syllables and

have no other purpose than that of grouping the figurative
vowels A, E, I and O).

(a) Practical utility of studying the conversion of proposi¬

tions. As the English philosopher Bain has remarked, a
great number of sophisms spring from the fact that care¬
less thinkers have the tendency to convert universal
affirmatives simply ; for instance, to pass from this
proposition : “ Every artist of genius astonishes common
people,” to this one : “ Every artist who astonishes
*44 LOGIC

common people is a genius ” ; or from this proposition

(supposed as true) : “ Every man of superior intelligence
has a large head,” to this other : “ Every man with a
large head has superior intelligence ” (see No. 59).
(b) Note that, in order to be suitably converted, a
proposition must first be reduced to its logical structure
(which admits of no verb except the copula is) so as to
entirely convert the whole Pr. into the whole S. The
converse of “ Peter sees a bear ” is not “ a bear sees Peter,”
but “ some (man) seeing a bear is Peter.”
*(c) A singular proposition is converted into an I, if
it is affirmative, into an E if it is negative. “ Peter is a saint,”
“ some saint is Peter,” “ Peter is not impious,” “ No
impious (man) is Peter.” Thus, in the theory of con¬
version, an affirmative singular is assimilable into an A
proposition and a singular negative into an E proposition.
*(d) In the conversion of modals, the mode does not
change. “ Every man is necessarily animal ” (A) ;
some animal (viz., rational animal) is necessarily man.”—
“ No man can think without images ” (E) ; “ no being
that thinks without images is a man.”
*(e) An affirmative proposition may be converted
simply when it happens, as it does in affirmatives whose
Pr. is a definition (convertible propositions) that the
extension of the Pr. is equal to that of the subject.
But this is not conversion properly so-called, for the second
proposition expresses another truth than does the first,
for even when its extension is equal to that of the S.
the Pr. has a particular substitutive value in every affirma¬
tive proposition, consequently the first proposition of
itself says but one thing : “ Each man is a rational
animal (regardless of the question of knowing whether
there be rational animals other than man) ; and the
second proposition, in saying : “ Each rational animal is
a man,” adds to, and expresses something other than, the
first.
To say that a convertible proposition may be converted
simply is to say that, supposing the proposition in question
to be true, its converse is equally true : it is not to say
that its simple converse expresses the same truth.
 THE PROPOSITION
*45
*(f) Is the conversion of proposition an immediate
inference ?—(See below, No. 68.)
*(g) Modern criticisms of the theory of conversion.—(See
No. 84.)
*(h) the equipollence of propositions. Besides oppo¬
sition and conversion there is another property of proposi¬
tions to be considered ; this property is called equipol¬
lence. When two propositions are opposed and are made
equivalent to one another by the addition of a negative
particle, we say that these propositions have become
equipollent. Example : given the original proposition
Nullo homo est justus. Its contradictory is : aliquis homo est
justus, and its contrary : omnis homo est justus. By adding
the particle no to both of the latter propositions we have :
NON aliquis homo est justus, and : Omnis homo non est justus,
which are equivalent to the original proposition. The
rules of equipollence concern language more than thought,
and since the English language does not readily lend
itself to them, we shall not study them here.

*59. reciprocal propositions. Given an affirmative The recip¬

rocal of an
universal (A) : “ Every square is a right-angled rhombus.” affirmative
universal
The is this same
proposition
converted
RECIPROCAL simply.

of this proposition is an equally affirmative universal (A) t

in which the two extremes are transposed : “ Every right-
angled rhombus is a square.” 1
Thus the reciprocal of an A is this same proposition
converted simply. And, if we keep in mind the fact that the
Pr. was taken particularly in the original proposition, as
it is in every affirmative, it is clear that, whereas the partial
converse “ some right-angled rhombus is a square ” expresses
the same truth as does the original proposition—the reciprocal
expresses another truth than does the latter and is independent
of it. Even though the original proposition be true, the

1 Likewise in the conditional propositions, often used for convenience’

sake in geometry : “If two circumferences are inwardly tangent, the distance
between their centres is equal to the difference between their radii.—Recip¬
rocal : If two circumferences are such that the distance between their
centres is equal to the difference between their radii, they are inwardly tangent.
146 LOGIC

reciprocal may yet be false. The truth of the propositions

“ every man is an animal,” “ every square is a parallelo¬
gram ” does not give us the right to conclude : “ every
animal is a man,” “ every parallelogram is a square.”
When the reciprocal is true (as it is in “ convertible ” pro¬
positions) it must be proven on its own account ; and its
truth may sometime demand the addition of some condi¬
tion. For example, the theorem : “ A line drawn through
two sides of a triangle, parallel to the third side, divides
those sides proportionally.” Its reciprocal is true, but by
means of the addition of a condition : “A straight line
cutting off proportional segments on two sides of a triangle
is parallel to the third side, if both the points of intersection
fall on the unextended sides of the triangle, or both fall on
their extensions.”
To conclude from the truth of an affirmative universal
to the truth of its reciprocal is a crude sophism which is
all too frequently committed.

(a) the inverse of a proposition. The inverse of an

(A) proposition is a proposition having the same terms
and the same quantity as the original, but whose subject
and copula are affected by negation. It is independent of the
original proposition, it may be false while the latter is
true : “ Every man is an animal,” “ Every not-man
(1e.g., a dog) is not an animal.
But this inverse proposition expresses in the negative
form the same thing as does the reciprocal of the original
proposition : “ Every not-man is not an animal ” =
“ every animal is a man.”
And the inverse of the reciprocal, in this case : “ Every
non-animal is not a man ” expresses the same thing as
does the original proposition (“ Every man is an animal ”).
Consequently if both a proposition and the inverse of
its reciprocal are true, it does not follow that its inverse
and reciprocal are true. But if both a proposition and
its reciprocal are true then its inverse and the inverse
of its reciprocal are true ; and if a proposition and its
inverse are both true, its reciprocal and the inverse of
its reciprocal are true.
 THE PROPOSITION 147
{ Every square is a right-angled rhombus
/ Reciprocal: Every right-angled rhombus is a 1 ^
(Equivalent square) (Equivalent
Propositions) Inverse : Every non-square (every rhombus that | Propositions)
\ is not square) is not a right-angled rhombus. J /
f Inverse of the reciprocal: Every non-right-angled
{ rhombus is not a square.
(If in a trihedral two dihedral angles are equal,
(the opposite surfaces are equal.
Reciprocal: If in a trihedral two surfaces are
equal the dihedrals opposite these surfaces are \
(Equivalent (Equivalent
equal.
Propositions) Propositions)
Inverse : If in a trihedral two dihedrals are not /
equal, the opposite surfaces are not equal.
(Inverse of the reciprocal: If in a trihedral two
■I surfaces are not equal, the dihedrals opposite
(these surfaces are not equal.

(b) In this paragraph we have been speaking of the

reciprocal in the strict sense. Certain authors, Ranouvier
for example, give this word a broader meaning, and use
it as synonymous with converse.
(r) drill. (1) Convert the following propositions :
Every man is a liar, No created intellect is able to under¬
stand God, Every created intellect is capable of knowing
God, Some rich man is merciful, Some painters are not
talented.
(2) Find the reciprocal, the inverse and the inverse
of the reciprocal of the following propositions, and say in
each case whether they are true or false : Every man is
a creature, Every animal is sentient, Every bat is mammal,
Every rectangle is a parallelogram, Every circle is a
conical section, Every rhombus has its diagonals per¬
pendicular to each other.
 CHAPTER III

REASONING

SECTION i. REASONING IN GENERAL

A. GENERAL NOTIONS

Reasoning 60. notion of reasoning. Reasoning, as we already

is the act by
which the know,1 is the third operation of the mind. It may be defined
mind pro¬
gresses in as :
knowledge
through the the act by which the mind acquires new knowledge by means
help of
what it of what it already knows.
already
knows. To reason is to proceed from one thing that has been
intellectually grasped to another thing intellectually grasped
by means of the first, and to advance thus from proposition
to proposition in order to know intelligible truth : procedere
de uno intellecto ad aliud, ad veritatem intelligibilem cognoscendam.2
Such an act implies a progressive movement of thought,
or a discursus (discourse), and consequently implies a suc¬
cession of moments, a succession of “ before ” and “ after.”
By reasoning the mind goes from the known to the
unknown, it acquires something new, either by discovering
a hitherto unsuspected truth (order of discovery or
invention), or by proving or establishing as certain a truth
which it had previously discovered but which it possessed
in an imperfect manner (order of judgment or demonstration).
61. reasoning and argumentation. Take, for example,
the following reasoning :
(I) Every perfection possessed by creatures has God for
its first cause ; but the operation of free will is a perfection
possessed by creatures.
(II) Therefore the operation of free will has God for its
first cause.
By a first act we perceive as true the proposition “ Every
1 See above, No. 2.
s St. Thomas, Sum. theol., I, q. 79, a. 8, resp. ; cf. q. 58, a. 3.
148
 REASONING H9

perfection possessed by creatures has God for its first cause ” ;

then by a second act we perceive as true the proposition :
“ the operation of free will is a perfection possessed by
creatures ” ; and not only do we perceive this proposition
as being true in itself, but we also perceive it as bearing
instructive and fruitful relationship with the first, as putting
something (viz., the objective concept “ the operation of
free will ”) under the dependence of the first proposition ;
that is why we say “ but.”
These two connected acts come first or precede in the
reasoning, hence those propositions upon which they bear are
called the antecedent. But the second of these acts is pregnant In reasoning
the mind is
with a third ; to know under the dependence of this truth— moved by-
two pro¬
that every perfection possessed by creatures has God for its positions,
perceived
first cause this other truth—that the operation of free will as true (the
antecedent),
is a perfection possessed by creatures—is already to know to posit the
truth of a
in act1 this third truth—that the operation of free will has third propo¬
sition (the
God for its first cause, . . . without indeed having for¬ consequent).

mulated it for itself, but in seeing it instantaneously in the

second proposition illumined by the first. So at the same
time, “ afia ” 2 in which the mind knows the truth of the

1 On the contrary, when I know only the Major : “ Every perfection pos¬
sessed by creatures has God for its first cause ” without relating it to the Minor
by an act of reason, I may say that I already know the conclusion “ Free will
has God for its first cause,” but with only a potential knowledge (my intelligence
is in potency to this truth) or virtual knowledge (this truth is contained virtually
in that of the Major). This potential or virtual knowledge can be actualized
only by the movement of the reason.
2 Aristote, Anal. Post., lib. I, cap. I, 71a, 20, St. Thomas, lect. 2 ; n. 9 ;
“ Ut si sic demonstraret aliquis, omnis triangulus habet tres angulos aequales
duobus rectis, ista cognita, nondum habetur conclusionis cognitio : sed cum
postea assumitur, haec figura descripta in semicirculo, est triangulus, statim scitur,
quod habet tres angulos aequales duobus rectis. . . . Inducens hanc assump-
tionem, scilicet, quod hoc, quod est in semicirculo, sit triangulus, simul,
scilicet tempore, cognovit conclusionem.” Cf. John of St. Thomas, Phil. Nat.,
Ill, q. XI, a. 4, p. 520.
Unless the mind reasons about a previously formulated argumentation
suggested to it by someone else, in which case all the propositions it considers
are constructed beforehand (for instance, in teaching, when a professor gives
an example of reasoning to a pupil), the construction of the conclusion as a
proposition is posterior in time to the construction of the Minor ; anima in
componendo et dividendo necesse habet adjungere tempus, ut dicitur in III de Anima,
cap. VI (St. Thomas, in Periherm., I, c. IX, lect. 14, n. 19). But the truth of the
conclusion is seen in the Minor taken as such before the conclusion itself is
constructed. Thus the perception of the truth of the Minor causes the per¬
ception of the truth of the conclusion, but precedes it only with a priority of
nature not of time, and thereby causes and precedes with a priority of time
the construction of the conclusion.
150 LOGIC

Minor taken as such (that is, perceived under the dependence

of the Major), it also knows in actu signato the truth of the
conclusion, in a vision which contains all that is formally
signified by the word to know, and has only to realize this
knowledge in actu exercito in formulating the proposition
which expresses it.
By a third act we immediately construct the third
proposition as being linked to those preceding it (therefore the
operation of free will, etc.) for we simultaneously perceive
its truth as necessarily consequent upon the truth of the
other two. Once the mind has performed the two pre¬
ceding acts it cannot avoid the third, just as a diver who
has jumped from a spring-board cannot avoid diving.
The mind stops in this third act ; by it it has come to
the term of its discourse ; this is the act of concluding. And
the proposition on which it bears is called the consequent.
It springs from the other two propositions in virtue of a
movement of the mind actuated by the antecedent whose
truth it has perceived. Our mind does not see the conse¬
quent in the propositions which constitute the antecedent
considered separately (in such a case it would not reason,
but would know intuitively after the manner of pure spirits) ;
it sees the consequent by means of these propositions.
Neither the light sufficing for the perception of the truth
of the first proposition in the antecedent, nor the light
sufficing for the perception of the truth of the second
proposition in the antecedent, suffices for the perception of the
truth of the consequent. But the bringing together of
these two lights, one under the other, necessarily gives birth
in the mind to another light (lights another light, if we may
so speak) by which the mind perceives the truth of the
consequent. This third light is the perception of the truth
of the antecedent as antecedent, the perception of the truth
of the Minor under the Major.1

1 Cf. John of St. Thomas, Logica, Ha, Pars, q. 24, a. 3, pp. 672-673 :
“ In eodem instanti quo minor cognoscitur, ut minor, deducitur assensus
conclusionis, ut asseritur a D. Thoma (I, Post., lect. 2, n. 9) quia posita
cognitione minoris formaliter ut coordinata et subordinata majori, atque
adeo supponendo cognitam bonitatem consequentiae, hoc ipso ponitur
lumen sufficiens et necessitans ad manifestandum conclusionem ; nec enim
alio lumine manifestatur conclusio, quam lumen illativo quod in praemissis
continetur ; sed illuminatio fit in instanti, multo magis in spirituali lumine
 REASONING I51

1 o sum up then, the act of reasoning supposes that certain

propositions have already been constructed by the mind.
Considering these propositions in a certain order and per¬
ceiving them as true, the mind also perceives—in simple
act (act of “ inference ”) which is the essential thing in
reasoning—that by this very fact, another proposition
which it has constructed is true and must necessarily be
affirmed in view of the assent given to the preceding
propositions.
Thus, in reasoning, the antecedent is as an absolutely
indispensable means or instrument by which the mind is moved
to posit the consequent. The consequent thus caused is the
term, which was at first unknown and is now known, in
which the mind rests.1 That which constitutes the reasoning
is the fact that the consequent does not merely come after
the antecedent (unum post aliud, discursus secundum suc-
cessionem), as it does when we pass from one idea to another
by means of the association of ideas, but it comes from it
(unum ex alio, discursus secundum causalitatem).
The logical organism formed by the antecedent (the moving
quam in corporali, quia illud est efficacius et perfectius ; ergo in eodem
instanti quo ponitur lumen praemissarum quo determinatur major ultimate
per minorem, ponitur assensus conclusionis, tanquam a causa non impedita
et operante instantanee.”—Curs, theol., t. IV, q. 58, disp. 22, a. 14 :
“ Discursus secundum causalitatem addit supra successionem cognoscendi,
quod una cognitio causetur ex alia, ita quod ex uno noto seu cognito moveamur
ad aliud ignotum ex vi prioris cogniti seu manifestati ; et sic manifestatio
unius debet esse causa manifestationis alterius, non solum quia unum objectum
illuminat aliud (hoc enim etiam in simplici intuitu plura objecta attingente
obtinere potest), sed quia ipse cognoscens prius illuminatur circa unum, et
in illo nondum illuminatur circa aliud, sed movetur ad educendum ex illo
aliud lumen, seu manifestationem alterius. . . . Requiritur ergo ad dis-
cursum quod sit diversitas et ordo etiam in ipso lumine ut tenet se ex parte
cognoscentis et unum lumen oriatur ex alio, sicut ex lumine principiorum
oritur lumen scientiae, ita quod primum lumen non sufficit ostendere per se ea
quae inferuntur, sed habet se ut lumen probativum, id est, quod manifestat
alterum per deductionem et illationem unius luminis ex alio, quia primum
non est sufficienter in se comprehensivum totius.”
1 Cf. John of St. Thomas, Log., I. P. Illustr., q. 8, a. 3 : “ Syllogismus est
quasi organicum instrumentum, quod constat ex parte movente, et ex parte
mota, sicut in viventibus una pars movet aliam. Constat enim quod ipsae
praemissae sunt motivum et ratio cognoscendi conclusionem, unde ad rationem
syllogismi, quo tamquam instrumento fit ista cognitio conclusionis, necessario
et essentialiter requiruntur praemissae. Similiter ipsa conclusio est objectum
cognitum ; ad hoc enim tendit syllogismus, ut conclusionem cognoscat per
illationem. Syllogismus est instrumentum logicum, quo intellectus movetur
de uno ad aliud cognoscendum, unde debet includere partem moventem,
quae sunt praemissae, et partem motam, quae est objectum illatum, seu
conclusio.”
 LOGIC
*52

part) and the consequent (the “ moved ” or caused part) is

Called ARGUMENTATION.

[a) If the propositions constituting the argumentation

are mental propositions the argumentation is mental. If
the propositions are oral, the argumentation is oral—
material expression of mental argumentation and con¬
sequently of the act of reasoning. In studying argumenta¬
tion Logic considers it in its oral form, but we must not
forget that its principal object is mental argumentation.
As we have already remarked, the word reasoning
(which in the strict sense signifies only the operation of
the mind and not the result produced), is used in English
to mean argumentation.
* (b) From the preceding analysis we see that the reason¬
ing taken as a whole (the preliminary acts bearing upon
the antecedent, the definitive act bearing upon the
conclusion) is a complex operation. But this complex
operation is really one and undivided, for reasoning is a
single continuous (that is, unarrested) movement by
which the mind goes from a starting-point to a goal.
The argumentation formed by the propositions with
which reasoning is concerned is itself one, but its unity is
one of order and co-ordination, not of being or quality, as
is that of the categorical proposition presented to the
mind by a single mental word (see above, No. 37 B).
Furthermore, the act of inference which constitutes
the essential thing in reasoning, the act by which the
mind necessarily sees the truth of the consequent, and
posits the latter, is itself a simple act.
*(c) We have already indicated that there are two
distinct functions in mental activity 1 : 1 the mind
produces or constructs something ; 2 the mind acts in a
purely immanent manner according to a mode of activity
which, when taken formally or in that which properly
constitutes it, is not a production. This latter function
consists either in seeing or apprehending, or in assenting.

1 These two distinct functions are two aspects of the same formally immanent
and virtually productive act (which is itself preceded, in the second operation
of the mind, by a preliminary constructive phase which is more dependent on
simple apprehension than on judgment). Cf. Nos. 8 (note 1) and 36.
 REASONING 153

In a general way, the mind produces or constructs in order to

see and assent. First, by means of abstraction, it forms a
mental concept in which it sees or apprehends an essence
(an objective concept, or the object of a concept).
Then it constructs an enunciation (composition and divi¬
sion), to which in apprehending the real conformity or
non-conformity of the S. and Pr., it may give its assent
expressed in a judicative proposition.
In the same way, reasoning supposes that two pre¬
viously constructed enunciations have been grouped
and co-ordinated in such a manner as to form an ante¬
cedent. By reason of the two successive acts of apprehension
or intellectual perception (and assent) that bear upon
this antecedent, the mind is moved to apprehend or to
perceive the necessary truth of a third proposition (the
consequent) which it immediately constructs and to which
it assents in a judgment wherein it rests.
It is therefore evident that, although the second opera¬
tion of the mind, inasmuch as it composes or divides, that
is, inasmuch as it constructs enunciations, is ordained
to reasoning as to the most complex operation, neverthe¬
less, the reasoning itself is ordained to the second opera¬
tion of the mind—inasmuch as it is consummated or
perfected in judgment or assent—as to the end of know¬
ledge 1 : we reason (in making use of other judgments)
in order to judge (in the conclusion).
The necessity of reasoning bespeaks the natural imper¬
fection of the human mind. An intuitive intellect of the
type possessed by pure spirits, apprehending at first
glance all that can be known in an object, has no need
for discourse : in knowing the principle it knows dis¬
tinctly all the conclusions ; it does not have to draw
them bit by bit from the principle. Such an intellect
sees that one truth follows from another, it knows the
influence exercised by the antecedent upon the conse¬
quent (inference), but it does not do so by moving from
something known before to something known after. The
1 Cf. John of St. Thomas, Phil. Nat., Ill, q. XI, a. 3, p. 516 : “ Secunda
operatio, quantum ad enuntiationem, praebet materiam discursui, et ordinatur
ad ilium, sed secunda operatio quantum ad assensum et judicium est finis, et
terminus ad quern ordinatur discursus, ut ad perfectionem, quam intendit.”
 154 LOGIC

human mind, however, when it reasons knows the infer¬

ence only by living it, by submitting itself to the move¬
ment which it implies.
62. ARGUMENTATION, INFERENCE, SEQUENCE. As We have
said, the argumentation is the logical organism formed by
the antecedent and the consequent. Now we must define
this notion more precisely.
We say that the antecedent infers (infert) the consequent,
or that there is a real inference (illatio) from one to the
other when the antecedent (supposed as true) necessarily
implies the consequent, or, in other words, when it has the
property of being unable to be true unless the consequent is true.
It is for this reason that when our mind has laid hold of
the antecedent as such, as involving the truth of the con¬
sequent, it cannot not perceive the truth of the consequent.
But our mind cannot grasp the antecedent as such unless
the propositions 1 about which it is reasoning be disposed
in a certain order which manifests the property in question.
Therefore we may define argumentation as :
The a group of propositions in orderly sequence one of which
argumenta¬
tion is a [the consequent) is posited as inferred by the others [the ante¬
group of
propositions cedent) .
one of which
is signified or, again, if we consider the argumentation in its oral
as inferred
by the expression : oratio in qua uno dato aliud sequitur—a discourse
others.
in which one thing being given, another is said to follow.
The The sequence [consequentia) is none other than the argu¬
sequence is
the con¬ mentation taken in what we may call its most vital point,
nection
existing that is, in the relation which unites the antecedent and
between
two the consequent to one another. We may define it as : a
propositions
thr connection existing between two propositions necessarily linked
signifies an
inference. together because the one infers the other, connexio illativa duarum
propositionum.2
In short a sequence may be called the statement of an
1 We are speaking here not only of oral propositions but also, and prin¬
cipally, of the mental propositions that co-ordinate concepts. As Aristotle says
{Anal. Post., I, io, 76 b, 25) the syllogism is not in the words but in the soul.
2 By the connection of two propositions is meant the connection of the minor
as such {thought under the dependence of the major) with the conclusion : “ . . . but
Peter is a man, therefore Peter is mortal.” In a conditional proposition “ if
Peter is a man he is mortal ” the sequence does not move the mind to pass from
one affirmation to another, for the inference is itself the object of affirmation.
 REASONING
*55

inference. We often say “ inference ” in the same sense

as “ sequence ” or “ argumentation.” For clarity’s sake,
however, it is expedient to reserve the word “ inference ”
(illatio) to indicate the antecedent’s property of inferring
the consequent, and to use the words “ sequence ”
(consequentia) and “ argumentation ” to signify the con¬
nection between the propositions which presupposes
this property. In such a case the sequence is valid if the
property in question exists, that is, if there actually is an
inference ; when, on the contrary, this property does not
exist, the sequence is invalid.

63. VALID AND INVALID, MATERIAL AND FORMAL SEQUENCE. A sequence

is valid
When there is an inference, when the antecedent really when there
is an
infers the consequent, we say that the argumentation or inference

sequence is valid. (In this case the antecedent cannot be

true without the consequent’s being true.)
When there is no inference, when the antecedent does invalid when
there is not.
not really infer the consequent, the argumentation or
sequence is invalid. (In this case the antecedent may be
true without the consequent’s being true. Example : “ Man
is mortal, but an angel is not a man, therefore an angel is
mortal,” “ all living beings have the power of self-movement,
but man is a living being, therefore man is a pure spirit.”
As a matter of fact, an invalid sequence is but a pseudo¬
sequence (it unites two propositions as if they were neces¬
sarily connected because one infers the other, whereas in
reality this inference does not exist.) It deserves the name
of sequence only by analogy, just as a corpse with a life¬
like appearance deserves the name of man only by analogy.
In every argumentation we must distinguish between the The matter
and form
matter (the objective concepts assembled in the propositions) of the
argumen¬
and the form, that is to say, the disposition of these same tation.

objective concepts, thanks to which their grouping signifies

an inference, or more precisely that disposition in which proposi¬
tions and concepts are so arranged, according to quantity, quality and
the other logical properties that they make known an inference.1

1 “ Forma est dispositio propositionum et terminorum secundum quanti-

tatem et qualrtatem, et alias proprietates logicales, in ordine ad inferendum
unum ex alio.” The “ other logical properties ” in question are the suppositio,
the ampliatio, etc., of which we have spoken above.
156 LOGIC

*A sequence may be invalid as to form, and neverthe¬

less valid as to matter, for example : “ Every man is
rational, but Peter is a man, therefore Peter has the power
of laughter.” There is inference here, but only by chance
or “by accident ” because it happens that everything
that is rational has the power of laughter. But were we
to say in using the same logical disposition (in having,
in the conclusion, a predicate other than the predicate
in the major) : “ Every man is rational, but Peter is a
man, therefore Peter is a musician,” the sequence would
be invalid. The same is true in induction ; for example,
supposing that we had verified by a particular instance,
the fact that man is mortal, but that we did not know that
to be mortal or immortal is a predicate which of its
nature depends necessarily upon the essential constitution
of a thing, and that we said : “ One man is mortal,
therefore every man is mortal.” The sequence is invalid as
to form, but nevertheless valid as to matter, since mor¬
tality cannot be in one man without being in all men.
There is an inference, but it exists only by chance, or
“ by accident,” because it so happens that the attribute
“ mortal ” is an essential attribute. (Were we to say in
the same way that “ one man is a knave, therefore every man
is a knave,” the sequence would be invalid.) Sequences
like “ every man is rational, therefore Peter has the power
of laughter,” or “ one man is mortal, therefore every
man is mortal ” are said to be materially valid, or material.
A sequence is valid as to form, or formally valid,
when it is valid by reason of the very disposition or of the
very order of the concepts which signify the inference.
In this case the antecedent infers the consequent with a
universal necessity de jure, whatever the matter may be
(that is, once this disposition has been made, whatever
the matter may be, the antecedent cannot be true without
the consequent’s also being true), and the sequence is
valid because it denotes an inference. Needless to say *

Logic treats only of formally valid sequences.

When the sequence is valid on the side of form (“ formally

valid ”), that is, when the manner in which the concepts
 REASONING 157

VALID OR INVALID, MATERIAL OR FORMAL SEQUENCE

' rformal Every man is rational'! The conclu¬

(the only therefore Peter is sion is secure
one studied rational as to the
in Logic) Every man is an manner in
angel therefore which it fol¬
valid (in Peter is an angel lows from the
which there * antecedent
is an in-* Every man is rational'
ference) therefore Peter has
the power of
Sequence The conclu¬
laughter
sion is not
material Every man is an
secure as to
angel therefore
the manner
Peter is immortal
in which it
invalid—(in which there Every man is rational
follows from
is no inference) therefore Peter is
the ante¬
a musician
cedent
Peter is a miser
therefore every man
is a miser

and propositions are co-ordinated according to their logical

properties is such that the antecedent infers the consequent
in virtue of the logical relations which obtain between the
concepts so arranged, we say that the conclusion is posited
vi formae, in virtue of the form. To study such sequences
(which are the proper object of Logic) from the point of view
of the form of the reasoning, the logician reduces them to
types wherein the properties and logical relations alone are
made clear, and the matter remains entirely indeterminate ;
for example : Every B is C, but every A is B, therefore
every A is C.

The expression vi formae (a conclusion posited vi formae)

refers to the form of mental propositions, of which the
form of the oral or written proposition is but the material
sign. It means that the conclusion is posited in virtue of a
disposition of concepts (e.g., the concept “ man ” serving as
a middle term between the concepts “ mortal ” and
“ Peter ”) and that this disposition is such that, whether
these concepts or any other concepts having the same
logical properties and the same disposition be used, the evidence
of the truth of the consequent necessarily imposes itself
in an absolutely necessary’ manner on the thinking mind
158 LOGIC

(if the antecedent is true). But it does not mean that the
conclusion is posited in virtue of a disposition of oral or
written signs which impose a mechanical necessity on a
mind in which no intellectual perception is going on.
If this point were always well understood we would be
spared a great many mistakes and misunderstandings
concerning Logic. Descartes, for instance, completely
misapprehended the meaning of the expression vi format.
It is extremely curious to note that his criticism of the
logic of the ancients [cf. Regulae ad directionem ingenii,
reg. X (Vol. X, p. 705, CEuvres de Descartes, Cerf, Paris) :
“ quasdam formas disserendi praescribunt, quae tam
necessario concludunt ut illis confisa ratio, etsi quodam
modo ferietur ab ipsius illationis evidenti et attenta consideratione,
possit tamen aliquid certum ex vi formae concludere,
etc.”] exactly applies not to the Logic he was criticizing,
but to the logical system which Leibnitz tried to build
up, inspiring himself from Cartesian ideas (the theory of
“ simple natures,” the idea of a universal philosophical
language) and which has become the Logistics of our day.

*64. “ sequence ” and “ argument ” The distinction

between these two notions is very important.
The sequence is concerned solely with the manner in
which the consequent follows from the antecedent, pre¬
scinding from the value of the propositions in relation to
what is and from the truth or contents of the propositions.
It is concerned with the act of inferring (illatio).
The argument, on the contrary, refers to the action of
proving (probatio). It is the means used to establish a con¬
clusion in a pure and simple manner (absolutely speaking),
taking into account not only the matter but also the form
of the argumentation.
An argument may be either demonstrative or probable, but
a sequence does not admit of such division ; it may only
be either valid or invalid. And if a sequence is valid it is
always and in every case necessary precisely because it is a
sequence or inference.1

1 Cf. John of St. Thomas, Log. I, P., Illustr., q. VIII, a. i.

 REASONING 159

For example the following syllogism :

(I) Every son loves his mother, A valid
sequence is
(II) but Paul is a son always
necessary as
(III) therefore Paul loves his mother, such, even
if the
argument is
only
is only a probable argument. Why is this so ?—Because the probable.
principle (I) stated of the antecedent is not a necessary
truth—it is true only in the majority of cases and admits of
exceptions. But the sequence is necessary as- such, for inas¬
much as the mind posits (I) and (II) it cannot not posit (III).
Thus every valid sequence is^ as such, necessary, even
when the argument is merely probable and deficient on the
material side ; in other words, a valid sequence is neces¬
sary even when the sequence is not necessary in the sense
that it does not render the conclusion necessarily and infal¬
libly true.
65. THE ESSENTIAL LAW OF ARGUMENTATION. I As We
have already seen (No. 62) the essential law of (inductive
or deductive) argumentation is—
From the
in a valid sequence it is impossible for the antecedent to be true follows
the true,
true and the consequent false never the
false;
or, in other words,
by the very fact that the antecedent is true the consequent is
likewise true.
This law is directly allied to the primary principle of
reason (the principle of identity : a thing is what it is) which
is expressed in Logic under the negative form of the prin¬
ciple of non-contradiction : to be is not to not be ; it is impossible
for a thing to be and not be at the same time and under the same
aspect.
Indeed, to suppose that a true antecedent infer a
false consequent would be to suppose that this true ante¬
cedent is false in some respect (in so far as it makes a
false consequent appear to be true) ; and since, to be
untrue it suffices to be false in some respect, this ante¬
cedent would be supposed as both true and not true at
the same time.
 160 LOGIC

Hence it follows that if the sequence is valid and the conse¬

quent is false, the antecedent is necessarily false.
2 Although a false consequent cannot follow from a true
antecedent, yet

in a valid sequence a true consequent may follow from a false

antecedent.

but This would be the case, for example, in the following

sometimes
lrom the reasonings : “ My purse is in the moon, but the moon is
lalse
follows the in my pocket, therefore my purse is in my pocket ; “ every
true.
square has three sides, but every triangle is a square,
therefore every triangle has three sides.” 1 Obviously such
reasonings beget true conclusions only by chance.2
It follows that even though the sequence be valid and the con¬
sequent true, the antecedent need not necessarily be true.

(a) As a matter of fact, in order to be true in some

respect it does not suffice to be not false ; a false antece¬
dent may be true in some respect without for that reason
being not false (that is, it may be true in so far as it makes
a true consequent appear to be true). Thus the principle
of contradiction does not prevent a true consequent from
following from a false antecedent.
In such cases the false (a false antecedent) does not
prove, cause, or manifest the true (the truth of the conse¬
quent) . But the true may follow from the false by accident,
in the sense that, supposing as true that which is not true
and is alleged by the antecedent, something may follow
therefrom which happens to be true, but for other reasons .3
(b) With the exception of these fortuitous cases, the
antecedent normally causes the truth of the consequent,
and therefore the antecedent, containing within it the

1 Similarly in an argumentation with but one false premise, e.g., “ Every

angel has free will, but every man is an angel, therefore every man has free
will.
2 Thus chance acting on the material side of the argumentation, may
either make the true follow from an argumentation that is invalid on the formal
side (see above n. 63, material sequence) or else it may make the true follow from
a valid argumentation whose antecedent is false.
3 “ Ex falso dicitur sequi verum, non quia possit causari, vel manifestari
per falsum, sed quia stat bene cum assensu falsae praemissae assensus verae
conclusionis ” (John of St. Thomas, Log., I. P. Illustr., q. VIII, a. i). Cf.
Aristotle, Anal. Pr., I, II, c. 2 (53, b 7) ; St. Thomas, in Metaph., I, II, lect. 2.
 REASONING 161

truth of the consequent, must be “ truer,” as Aristotle

says, that is more certain, than the consequent.

B. DIVISION OF REASONING

66. the different kinds of argumentation. Argumenta¬

tion is divided essentially into two kinds, according to the
manner in which it manifests the truth. For there are
but two ways in which we may manifest the truth. Either There are
two kinds of
our mind takes as its starting-point the first universal prin¬ reasoning or
argumenta¬
ciples known immediately by the intelligence, and links these tion :
the
principles to a conclusion, or “ resolves ” a conclusion into syllogism
and
these principles ; in this instance the mind moves purely induction.

ON THE INTELLIGIBLE PLANE

and makes known the truth of the proposition in so far as

it is contained in the universal truth from which it is derived.

Example : Everything that subsists immaterially is

indestructible,
but the human soul subsists immaterially,
therefore the human soul is indestructible.

This is a deductive argumentation, or a

i ' -- 'N V
SYLLOGISM

in which the S. (the human soul) and the Pr. (indestructible)

of the conclusion are united to each other by their mutual
union to a third term called the middle term (“ that subsists
immaterially ”).
Or our mind takes as its starting-point sense data and the
facts of experience, which are the primary source of all our
knowledge and belong to the order of the individual or
singular. In this instance the mind moves

FROM THE SENSIBLE TO THE INTELLIGIBLE PLANE and

makes known the truth of a proposition in so far as it is the

universal enunciation of which these singular data are the
parts.
Example : this lot of water boils at ioo°, this other does
 162 LOGIC

the same, this other, and this other also . . . therefore

water boils at ioo°. This is inductive argumentation or
INDUCTION

in which the S. and Pr. of the conclusion are not united

in virtue of their union to a third term, but in virtue of the
enumeration of the “ subjective ” parts 1 of the subject.
The There are, therefore, but two kinds of argumentation :
syllogism
itselfi6 the syllogism and induction (to which may be reduced the
either
categorical example and reasoning by analogy (see below, No. ioo).2
or condi¬
tional. The syllogism itself is divided into the categorical syllogism
(the syllogism pure and simple) and the conditional syllogism,
accordingly as it is founded on the identity of two terms
with a same third term, or on the positing (or destruction)
of one of the members of a conditional proposition (see
below, Nos. 69 and 87).

Conditional propositions are already related to argu¬

mentation in the sense that they are precisely the affirma¬
tion of a sequence or inference. Nevertheless, they remain
propositions and do not properly speaking constitute
argumentations because they do no more than affirm that
a proposition (be it true or false) infers another, without
positing a conclusion as true in reason of this inference.

C. “ IMMEDIATE INFERENCE ”

67. ARE THERE ANY IMMEDIATE INFERENCES ? It is often

said that we make an immediate inference when we pass
from the affirmation of a proposition, e.g., “ No man is an
angel ” to its converse : “ therefore no angel is a man ” or
to the negation of its contradictory : “ therefore it is not true
that some man is an angel ” ; that is, we say that in this
case an inference or conclusion follows from the positing
of a single proposition.

1 See above, No. 13. The parts of a potential or logical whole {e.g.—animal
in respect to its species, man in respect to Peter, John, etc.) are called subjective
parts.
2 Cf. Aristotle, Anal. Pr., lib. II, c. 23, 68 b 13 : an-ayra mareiovtv $; Sid
iruWoyiopov^ ij t( twayaryjjs.—Anal. Post., lib. I, c. 18, 81 a. 40 : pavdayo/acy ij
iiraytayn 1) atroStgei. <ectti S’ i) /alv arrASfi^s’ i\ ruy naO&\ov, tj S’ ’tiraywyii lx
tcov Kara /utpos. (St. Thomas, lect. 30, 4). As we shall see later on, the
attempts made by certain philosophers to reduce induction to the syllogism
and to deny its essential originality as a type of reasoning, have all been futile.
 REASONING 163

This is true if we understand the word inference in an

improper manner, simply as meaning the act of passing
from one proposition to another proposition which follows
from the first (the word other here refers only to the dis¬
position of the terms or concepts in the proposition). Actually
the proposition “ no man is an angel ” is not the same as
“ no angel is a man ” and the mind sees immediately,
without the need of having recourse to any intermediary,
that if the first proposition is true the second is true also.
But the fact is that these two propositions do nothing but
purely and simply signify the same truth ; the mind does not
advance, in passing from one to the other, for they are merely
two different ways of saying the same thing, of constructing
the same object of assent.
Therefore this in no respect constitutes an inference
properly so-called. For in every inference properly so-called the
mind passes from one proposition to an other proposition
which follows from the first, the word other being here
related to the intelligible object itself which is presented to the When the
word
mind. The proposition “ the human soul is indestructible,” inference is
taken in its
says something else, expresses another truth, than does the proper
sense (a
proposition, “ Everything that subsists immaterially is passing
from one
indestructible.” It is evident then that, when the word truth to
another
inference is taken in its proper sense, there can be no immediate truth) there
is no such
inference. thing as an
immediate
For when the mind considers a single proposition, e.g., inference.

“ Everything that subsists immaterially is indestructible,”

it sees nothing else but this truth, therefore it cannot pass
to a different truth. Only if it relates to this first known
truth a second known truth—if, for example, it thinks the
proposition “ the human soul subsists immaterially ”
under the dependence, and in the light of the first truth : “ Every¬
thing that subsists immaterially is indestructible ”—may it
proceed to a third truth by means of a vital act wherein the
two premisses are seen together, and say “ the human soul
is indestructible ”—a truth which it did not hitherto know
as certain, and which it sees instantaneously in the second
truth as made fruitful by the first. Therefore every inference
properly so-called, every progressive act of the reason,
every argumentation, supposes at least three propositions
164 LOGIC

(two for the antecedent, one for the consequent), and

therefore three terms.
*68. DISCUSSION OF THE INSTANCES OF SO-CALLED IMMEDIATE
inference. Logicians ordinarily give as examples of imme¬
diate inference 1 simple and accidental conversion of
propositions ; 2 subalternation ; 3 contraposition ; 4
passage from a proposition supposed as true to the negation
of its contradictory or from a proposition supposed as false
to the affirmation of its contradictory.
It is easy to see that in every one of these instances the
mind employs the principle of identity or non-contradic¬
tion—but it does not do so to draw one truth from another,
but, on the contrary, to maintain one and the same truth under
two different logical formulations.
(1) In the case of simple conversion, the mind reflects on
the manner in which the S. and Pr. are taken from the
point of view of extension in the original proposition (it
reflects on the suppositio of the extremes). In so doing it
perceives that the same truth (e.g., There is a conformity
between man and liar when each are taken particularly,
or again there is no conformity between man and angel
when each are taken universally), may be equally well
expressed in a proposition de inesse, by assigning to the
first term the logical function of S., and to the second term
the logical function of Pr. (“ some man is a liar,” “ no
man is an angel”), or by assigning the function of S. to
the second term and that of Pr. to the first (some liar
is a man, no angel is a man). The mind grasps the same
truth twice, for the same term is identified with the same
term or separated from the same term in both cases, and
the extension of these terms remains the same throughout.
(2) In the case of the accidental conversion of A, the
mind sees likewise that the same truth (e.g., there is con¬
formity between man taken universally and mortal taken
particularly) is equally well expressed in a proposition de
inesse by taking the first term as S. (every man is mortal)
or by taking the second term as S. (some mortal (being)
is a man). The mind seized the same truth twice, although
the second time it seized it in an implicitly partial or
diminished manner, because Man, being the Pr. in the
 REASONING 165

second affirmative, is taken particularly therein. Having

taken the universal man the first time according to all the
singulars contained under it, in order to identify it with
mortal, the mind took this same universal again in the
second proposition to identify it with mortal, but this time
it did not take it according to all the singulars contained
under it.
(3) The accidental conversion of E comes into the case
of subalternation, for, as we have seen, the partial converse
of E is the subalternate of its simple converse.
(4) In the case of subalternation the mind sees imme¬
diately that once a certain truth has been constructed and
stated, the same truth (e.g., Every man is mortal) may
be repeated in an explicitly partial or diminished fashion
by taking the S. particularly instead of universally ; Some
man is mortal.
The mind seizes the same truth both times ; having first
seized the universal Man according to all its singulars in
order to identify it with Mortal, it seizes it again for the
same reason, but this time it takes it only according to some
of its singular subjects (individuum vagum). It is of the very
essence of this universal as such that its identification with
Mortal according to all its singulars should also and by a
single act be its identification with Mortal according to
some of its singulars.
(5) In the case of contra-position the mind reflects on
the extension of the extremes, and perceives that the same
truth expressed by saying that everything included in A
is also included in B (every A is B) may also be expressed
by saying that everything exterior to B is also exterior to A
(every non-B is non-A) ; just as it is the same to say that
Paris is in France and to say that everything outside France
is also outside Paris.1
1 Likewise to say that a part of A is not included within the confines of B
(“ some A is not B ”) is exactly the same as to say that part of that which is
outside the confines of B is not outside the confines of A (“ some not B is not
not A,” that is “ some not B is A ”). For example, to say that a part of Russia
(namely Asiatic Russia) is not in Europe, is identical with saying that a part
of that which is outside the confines of Europe (Asiatic Russia) is not outside
Russia. Mr. Lachelier (.Etudes sur le syllogisme, pp. 10-12, 16-17) has not
understood that the true nature of contra-position consists in applying the
negative particle to the extremes without changing the (affirmative or negative)
quality of the copula.
166 LOGIC

(6) In the case of the opposition of contradiction the

mind reflects upon the fact that one proposition flatly
denies what the other affirms, and immediately sees that
the same truth is expressed by the positing of the one

(“ every man is mortal ”) and the destruction of the other

(“ it is false that some man is not mortal ”) or by destruc¬
tion of the one (“ it is false that every man is sincere ”) and
the positing of the other (“ some man is not sincere ”).1
Consequently in none of these cases is there any inference
properly so-called.

(a) However, this does not prevent us from verifying in

every one of these cases that the change in logical structure
does not affect the truth of the original proposition, but
this matter of verification is the task of the logician, who
would reason, for example, in the following fashion :
In the case of subalternation (Every man is mortal,
therefore some man is mortal) :

That which is in every man is in some man

but mortal (ity) is in every man
therefore mortal (ity) is in some man.

In accidental conversion (Every man is mortal, there¬

fore some mortal is man) :
That which is predicated, according to some one of its
singular subjects, of every man, is identical, according
to some one of its singular subjects, with man,
but Mortal is predicated of every man according to some
one of its singular subjects,

1 As Mr. Hamelin has remarked (Syst. d’Arist., p. 166, note i), it is begging
the question to demonstrate the obvious fact that if a proposition is true its
contradictory is false and vice versa, as Rondelet attempts to do in his Theorie
des propositions modules (Paris, 1861, p. 141). On the other hand, in the case
of the other two kinds of opposition, contrariety and sub-contrariety, it is by
the intermediation of the opposition of contradiction that the mind passes
from the affirmation of a true proposition to the negation of its contrary (Every
man has a soul, therefore it is false that no man has a soul) or from the negation
of a proposition supposed as false to the affirmation of its sub-contrary (it is
false that some man is not mortal, therefore some man is mortal). In the former
case the falsity of the (particular) contradictory : “ some man has no soul,”
entails the falsity of the (universal) contrary : “no man has a soul ” ; in
the second case the truth of the (universal) contradictory : “ every man is
mortal” entails the truth of the (particular) sub-contrary : “ some man is
mortal.”
 REASONING 167

therefore Mortal is identical with man according to

some one of its singular subjects.
In simple conversion (no man is an angel, therefore no
angel is a man) : that which is denied, according to all
of its singular subjects, of all man, is separated, according
to all of its singular subjects, from man, but Angel is
denied, according to all its singular subjects, of all man,
therefore Angel is separated according to all its singular
subjects from man.
Such syllogisms are but verifications, subsequent
explanations, or products of logical reflection, which
must not be confused with the operation originally and
naturally performed by the mind. As we have seen,
this operation of which we have just been speaking is
not an inference properly so-called, but is the simple
passage, without progressive reasoning, from one logical
structure to another expressing the same truth. The
logician may subsequently develop this operation into
a syllogism that is more explanatory than illative (a syllo¬
gism providing a formal verification but not a real
proof),1 but he does so by purposely taking as Major, a
truth (e.g., “ that which is in all man is in some man ”)
to which the mind conforms in actu exercito without
further explanation, because it seizes its application to
the particular case immediately, even before it grasps
its general truth (“ Mortal(ity) is in all man, so it is in
some man ”). Actually this act does nothing but express
that which is of the essence of universal terms as used
by the mind.
(b) Drawing inspiration from the efforts of Ramus2
and especially from those of Leibnitz,3 Lachelier 4 asserts
that subalternation, contra-position and (partial) con-

i The “ demonstrations ” of conversions, which proceed by reduction to

the absurd, first proposed by Aristotle {Anal. Pr., I, 2, 25 a, 14-26) and later
by Theophrastus and Eudemus, and then by Alexander, are not proofs
properly so-called but simple formal verifications. This point is understood
neither by Rondelet in his Theorie des Propositions modales, nor by Ramus, who
accuses Aristotle of circular reasoning because he “ proves ” syllogisms of
the third figure by means of conversions, and “ proves” conversions by means
of syllogisms of the third figure.
3 Ramus, Animadvers. aristotelicae, lib. XVII, ed. 1548, p. 373 sqq.
* Leibnitz, New Essays on Human Understanding, liv. IV, Chap. II, § 1.
4 J. Lachelier, Etudes sur le Syllogisme, Part I.
168 LOGIC

version are in reality syllogisms of the first, second, and

third figures, in which one of the premisses is understood
by the mind but unexpressed.
Ingenious as this theory may be it must be rejected.
It confuses the reasoning of verification constructed by
the logician with the original operation of the mind thus
verified. The former operation is neither a mediate
inference or syllogism (on the contrary, the passage from
one proposition to the other is immediate), nor an imme¬
diate inference (this passage, although immediate, consists
in going from the same to the same).
Furthermore, this theory makes use of syllogisms in
which one of the premisses (the one that is understood
by the mind but not expressed) is an identical proposi¬
tion. Thus, according to Mr. Lachelier, the partial con¬
version of the affirmative universal “ All A is B, therefore
some B is A ” would in reality be this syllogism of the
third figure (in Darapti) :
All A is A
but all A is B
therefore some B is A.
Likewise subalternation would be the following syl¬
logism (in Darii) :
All A is B,
but some A is A,
therefore some A is B.
But, whatever Mr. Lachelier may say to the contrary,
the propositions “ All A is A,” “ Some A is A ” (and all
similar propositions which he uses in his theory, are
identical propositions in reality as well as in appearance.
All sane logic, that is to say all logic that works with
concepts and objects of thought, not merely with words
and signs, all logic that is really an art of thinking and
not an algebra to dispense with thought, must absolutely
refuse to use these purely tautological propositions which
Leibnitz misused so grievously.
There will be no inconvenience in using the word
“ inference ” in a broad sense, once it has been well
established that, in the proper sense of the word, there
 REASONING 169

is no such thing as an immediate inference, and that all the

immediate passages from one proposition to another,
generally given as examples of immediate inference
are really two different formulations of one and the same
truth. In this broad sense “ inference ” will be used to
designate every passage from one proposition to a second
proposition which is necessarily true if the first is true
(even if these two propositions do nothing but state the
same truth), and will also designate conversion, contra¬
position, etc., although in a more material than formal
sense. Such is the traditional use made of this word by
the ancients in their treatises de consequentiis.

SECTION 2. THE SYLLOGISM

A. THE CATEGORICAL SYLLOGISM

i. General Notions
69. definition. What is the purpose of the syllogism ? In the
syllogism,
Not to order thought by ascending to the universal from from an
antecedent
the singular data of sense perception (for this is the task of uniting
two terms
induction), but to order thought according to the connection (T and t)
to a third
between (universal) terms.1 Therefore syllogistic procedure (M) a con¬
sequent is
consists essentially in inferring or deducing a proposition inferred,
that unites
from an antecedent that reveals (in a third term) the means these two
terms to
by which, or the reason for which, the two terms of this pro¬ each other.

position must be united. The syllogism may be defined as 2 :

an argumentation in which,
from an antecedent that unites two terms to a third,
a consequent is inferred uniting these
two terms to each other.
The two terms united as S. and Pr. in the conclusion are
1 The word term refers not only to the oral term here, but also to the concept
itself signified by the oral term, and primarily to the objective concept or object
of the concept.
2 The definition given by Aristotle in the Anal. Pr. (I, i, 24 b, 18) : “ Oratio
in qua quibusdam positis, aliud quiddam diversum ab his, quae posita sunt
necessario accidit, eo quod haec posita sunt.” Ao'yor eV <S, reOtvTwv tiwv,
erepov ti tCSv Keificvuv avdyKTjs <rvpLfia.iuei rep ravra tivdi. is undoubtedly true
par excellence of the syllogism in the strict sense of the word, which is the perfect
type of reasoning, but of itself it is applicable to reasoning in general, that is to
the syllogism taken in the broad sense of the word as synonymous with argu¬
mentation (induction and the syllogism stricto sensu).
 170 LOGIC

called extremes. Since the Pr. normally has a greater exten¬

sion than the S., the Pr. of the conclusion is called the Major
Extreme or the
MAJOR TERM (T).

T, t and M
are the
and the S. of the conclusion, the Minor Extreme or the
remote
matter of MINOR TERM (t).
the
syllogism.
The term to which each of these two terms, T and t, is
united in the antecedent, and which is the means or reason
of their union in the conclusion is called 1 the
MIDDLE TERM (M).
These three terms, T, t and M, are the remote matter of the
syllogism.
As we have seen above (Chap. I, section 3, § 3, 24), in
regard to the syllogism the verb in the proposition is
not a term, but merely serves to unite the S. and Pr.
When the syllogism is resolved into its elements, the verb
is not id in quod resolvitur, but id quod dissolvitur.
The Major
(prop,
The two propositions composing the antecedent, each of
joining
M and T)the
which unites one of the extremes to the Middle term, are
Minor
(prop,
called the
joining M PREMISSES
and t) and
the con¬
clusion of the syllogism. The premise containing the Major term
(prop,
joining t (the term that becomes the Pr. of the conclusion) is called
and T) are
the proxi¬ the
mate
matter of V I MAJOR.
the
syllogism.
The premise containing the Minor term (the term that
becomes the S. of the conclusion) is called the
\f, MINOR.

The Major, Minor and conclusion constitute the proximate

matter of the syllogism.
From now on we may agree to designate the Minor term
by the letter t, the Major term by the letter T, and the Middle
term by the letter M. Thus, taking the classic example of

1 The word middle should not be understood from the point of view of
extension, in the sense that the extension of M is necessarily intermediary
between that of T and t. This is true only in the perfect moods of the syllogism
(see below, Nos. 77 and 78).
 REASONING 171

the syllogism, which logicians have chosen because of its

excessive simplicity we have :

THE STRUCTURE OF THE SYLLOGISM

( M T
Every man is mortal {Major)
ANTECEDENT
t M
, but Peter is a man {Minor)
t T
CONSEQUENT : therefore Peter is mortal {Conclusion)

(N.B.—In constructing a syllogism we must always take care

to begin with the major, that is, with the premise containing
the term (T) which will become the Pr. of the conclusion.)
It is evident now that the identification of Peter and
Mortal with each qther, by means of the M Man, is possible
only because Man, which communicates Mortal to Peter,
contains Peter in its extension. Whence is derived the
property by which the syllogism is characterized : the
syllogism is an argumentation in which, from the point of
view of logical relations, we conclude from a more universal
truth to a less universal truth contained in it.1
70. THE POINT OF VIEW OF EXTENSION AND THE POINT OF
view of comprehension. As may be seen from the very
names, Major term and Minor term, Major premise and Minor
premise, we have designated the elements of the syllogism
from the point of view of extension. Nothing could be more
legitimate or more correct since this is merely a matter of
assigning names, and the definitions of names are arbitrary.
Furthermore, logicians find that there are certain advan¬
tages to be gained by way of convenience and uniformity,
in considering the syllogism from the point of view of extension
alone. Especially does this enable them to give a geometrical
representation of the syllogism. (Leibnitz and Euler are
chiefly responsible for setting Logic off on this quest for
visual schemas, such as were unknown to the ancient
logicians.) This also is perfectly legitimate, since every
proposition, whatever its nature, may be considered by
logical reflection from the point of view of extension. Thus
1 See below, No. 81.
172 LOGIC

we represent the extension of each of the terms of the

syllogism by three circles (Euler’s circles), and interpret the
syllogism as follows :

M T
(Maj.) Every man is mortal, i.e., Man as a
whole is a part of the extension of Mortal

t M
(Min.) but Peter is a man, i.e., Peter is a
part of the extension of Man

t T
(Concl.) therefore Peter is mortal, i.e., Peter
is a part of the extension of Mortal.

Since the middle circle is contained in the large one, and

the small circle is contained in the middle one, the small
circle is contained in the large circle.
This geometric representation is very convenient, yet it
has some drawbacks. It risks substituting the visual or
sensible evidence of the relations of container to contained for the
intelligible evidence of the relation of identification of the two
extremes to the middle term and consequently to each other.
We must not forget that the judgment does not consist in
declaring that one term is contained in the extension of
another, but consists primarily in declaring that two terms,
distinct as concepts, are identical in existence, and only
consequently in making the one enter into the extension of
the other. Nor should we think that the reasoning comes
already made in the propositions presented to the mind,
in such wise that the mind in reasoning simply ascertains
that one drawer is in another which is in turn in a third.
This ascertainment is the task of the logician reflecting
upon the extension of the terms of the syllogism after the
reasoning has been made. Reasoning is a vital act of the
mind, for which the propositions grouped in the syllogism
furnish but the matter. It is in seeing the identity of the
 REASONING x73
t and the M in the Minor, under the dependence of the
Major which identifies the M and the T, that the mind sees
instantaneously that the t and the M are themselves iden¬
tical in re. This is an act of intellectual perception which
is in no way present beforehand in the materials of the
syllogism ; it reveals something new, and without it there
would be only a series of words or concepts, only the matter
of reasoning, but not the reasoning itself.
Note that in the case of convertible propositions (everything
rational has the power of laughter, but man is rational,
therefore man has the power of laughter) all three of
Euler’s circles coincide with each other from the point of
view of the content of the propositions, and are included one
within the other only from the strict point of view of the
logical relations existing between the terms. (This latter is,
however, the only point of view essential to the theory of
the syllogism, see below, No. 81.)
Furthermore, it would be equally legitimate to consider
the syllogism from the point of view of comprehension.
That is to say that, although it is impossible 1 for logical
reflection to dismiss all consideration of the extension of
terms, yet it could very well consider affirmation in each
proposition of the syllogism as including the Pr. in the com¬
prehension of the S., and negation as excluding the Pr.
from the comprehension of the S. (the while this Pr. and S.
have certain logical properties from the point of view of
extension). In this instance the logician would say, for
example : Everything having human nature is mortal, Peter
has human nature, therefore Peter is mortal. From this aspect
the dispute between the extensivists (Leibnitz, Segner, Hamilton
and the contemporary logisticians) and the comprehensivists
(Lambert, Hamelin, Rodier) seems rather pointless.
But what is the actual procedure of the mind here ?
This question belongs to Psychology, not to Logic, and the
confusion of these two points of view by many moderns
has considerably obscured the issue. As we have said above,
the mind, in judging, does but one thing directly, “ expli¬
citly,” or in “ signified act ” (in actu signato) it identifies a
Pr. and a S.; it is true, that simultaneously and by the
same act it makes the S. enter into the extension of the Pr.,
1 See above, No. 18.
 174 LOGIC

or the Pr. enter into the comprehension of the S., but it

does so only “ in exercised act ” (in actu exercito) and without
saying it to itself. It is for this reason that he who has not
reflected, upon his act of reasoning does not know whether
he has reasoned in extension or in comprehension. By
making such a reflection, it becomes apparent that, as a
matter of fact, everything depends upon the particular
case, but that the more usual and natural procedure of the
reason in making a judgment is to think that a certain
note belongs to a certain subject. So, since the logician has
the perfect right to develop the theory of the syllogism
solely from the point of view of extension, the psychologist is
equally justified in considering the reason as functioning
ordinarily in comprehension.
To reason However, in many cases the reason alternates from the
“ in com¬
prehension ” point of view of comprehension to that of extension. [This is
is the more
natural and clearly indicated in French, for ordinarily a Pr. thought
fundamental
procedure from the point of view of extension is preceded by the
for the
mind. indefinite article a (un). Thus everyday language says
“ Pierre est un homme ” and not “ Pierre est homme.”]
In the theory of the syllogism the logician may find it to
his advantage to make use of a schema such as the following
(wherein the Pr. is represented, as to comprehension, by
the shading of the circle representing the S.).

M T
(Maj.) Every man is mortal, i.e.,
Every man has the attribute, mor¬
tality (from the point of view of
comprehension).

T M
(Min.) but Peter is a man, i.e., Peter
belongs to the human species (from
the point of view of extension).

t T
(Concl.) Therefore Peter is mortal,
i.e., Peter has the attributej mortality
(from the point of view of compre¬
hension) .
 REASONING 175

Since the circle M is entirely shaded (T), the circle t

which is contained in it is also shaded.
But let us not forget that it is one thing to reason and but whethei
the mind
another to develop the theory of reasoning. Schemas, like reasons
“ in com¬
Euler’s circles, concern only the reflection which the art of prehension ”
or “ in
Logic makes upon our reasonings in order to verify the extension ”
the logical
conditions of legitimacy ; they by no means pretend to properties
of terms
impose a uniform type of procedure upon the natural move¬ and
propositions
ment of the reason. Those who accuse “ classical Logic ” of always
remain the
being a “ Logic of extension ” 1 err in failing to see that, same.

whatever this procedure may be—whether we consider

things “ in extension ” or “in comprehension ” or alter¬
nately “ in comprehension ” and “ in extension,” the logical
relations existing between the terms always remain the
same and inevitably introduce conditions for legitimacy
which depend upon extension, conditions which logical
reflection cannot not take into account (nor does this make
reasoning consist in enclosing boxes one within the other).
The ancients were neither exclusively “ extensivists ” nor
exclusively “ comprehensivists.” On the one hand, they
emphasized the essential role played by the relations of
“ extension,” in order to assure and guarantee the identifica¬
tion of the two extremes with the middle term, and in the
theory of the syllogism they followed Aristotle in reflecting
primarily upon the extension of terms. On the other hand,
they said : Praedicatum inest subjecto, understanding thereby
that the judgment has for its primary logical function the
affirmation of the inherence of a Pr. in the comprehension of
a S. ; accordingly they called propositions de inesse inasmuch
as they attribute a Pr. to a S. To indicate attribution,
Aristotle says, not “ A is B,” but rather “ to A belongs
B ” (to> A imdpxci P) indicating that for him, as for his
scholastic disciples, the judgment and the proposition are
to be understood first and foremost from the point of view
of comprehension.2
71. THE SUPREME PRINCIPLES OF THE SYLLOGISM. All the

1 Cf. Rodier Les Fonctions du Syllogisme, Annee Philosophique, 1908. In

truth, if Aristotelian logic has kept to the mean, “ classical logic ” among
the moderns—especially since Leibnitz, seems indeed to have been impaired
by exclusively extensivistic preoccupations.
* See above, No. 52.
 I76 LOGIC

force of the syllogism and the art of deduction depends

upon this supreme, self-evident principle :

Principle ol Two things, identical with a same third thing are identical
triple
identity with each other ;
and the
separating two things, one of which is identical, the other not identical,
third.
with a same third thing, are different from each other.1

This principle, which we may call the “ principle of

triple identity ” in its positive form, and the “ principle
of the separating third ” in its negative form, is but a par¬
ticular expression of the principle of identity (a thing is
what it is, every being has a determinate nature which
properly constitutes it) or of the principle of contradiction
(to be is not to not be, a thing cannot be both affirmed
and denied at the same time and in the same respect.

Note that for the principle of triple identity : “ two

things identical with a same third thing are identical
with each other ” to be legitimate, the third thing must
be the same re et ratione ; not only in reality but also
according to reason, lest it be taken under two different
formal aspects, thus : “ Nationality is an abstract notion,
and my nationality is French, therefore an abstract
notion is French ” would be a defective reasoning,
because nationality is identified with “ abstract notion ”
and with “ French ” in two different senses. In the first
instance “ nationality ” has a “ logical ” suppositio (sub¬
stitutive value), in the second its suppositio is “ real.”

Likewise both the straight line AB and the straight

line BA are identical with the same straight line AB, in so

far as this straight line contains these two different
aspects virtually, but nevertheless we cannot identify

AB and BA with each other. Similarly, as we shall see in

natural philosophy, when two bodies interact, the action
exercised by the one, and the passion undergone by the
other, are each identical with one and the same change,

1 Principium identitatis et discrepantiae : “ Quae sunt eadem uni tertio, sunt quoque
eadem inter se : quorum unum cum tertio convenit, alterum ab eo discrepat, ea inter se
diversa sunt.”
 REASONING 177
but this change proceeds from the agent in one case, and is
received in the patient in the other, so that this action and this
passion are in no way identical with each other.

But the first principle of the syllogism may be applied to

our reasonings—which have for matter abstract and universal
concepts—only by means of two other equally fundamental
principles which concern the relation of the universal
concept with its subjective parts ; to ignore them would
be to destroy the syllogism :

1 That which is universally affirmed of a subject is Dictum de

omni.
affirmed of everything contained under that subject.

This is called, after Aristotle, the dictum de omni (quidquid

universaliter dicitur de aliquo subjecto, dicitur de omni quod
sub tali subjecto continetur). To affirm universally of man
that he is mortal, is by the same act to affirm the same of
each individual human being.

2 That which is universally denied of a subject is also Dictum de

nullo.
denied of everything contained under that subject.

This is called the dictum de nullo (quidquid universaliter

negatur de aliquo subjecto, dicitur de nullo quod sub tali
subjecto continetur). To deny universally of man that he
is vegetal is thereby to deny the same of every individual
human being.
These two principles are self-evident, since it is precisely
the nature of the universal to be one and the same in all
those things in respect of which it is universal—in other
words, in all the things “ contained under it.” “ Mortal,”
declared identical with “ man,” may be declared identical
with “ Peter ” by means of this third term “ man ” only
because the universal “ man,” which is one in the mind,
is identified in reality with each human being, and therefore The
universal
with Peter. Consequently what is affirmed of “ man ” is the
principle of
must be also affirmed of each individual.1 the syllo¬
gism.
Note that it is of the essence of the syllogism 2 that the
third or middle term be a universal object of a concept.

1 Gf. Aristotle, Anal. Pr., I, 1, 24 b, 26.

2 We are not speaking here of the expository syllogism (see below, No. 85)
which is not a true syllogism.
 I78 LOGIC

For inasmuch as the middle term is the cause of, or reason

for, the attribution of T to t, inasmuch as it communicates
to a subject the predicate which is said of this subject in the
conclusion, it must itself be communicable 1 to this subject; and
whoso says “communicable to many” says “universal.’'
That is why the principle of the syllogism resides in the universal
nature.2
♦Many modern logicians accuse the principle dictum
de omni of considering only the extension of terms, and
prefer to it a principle based solely on comprehension
which they formulate as follows :

nota notae est nota rei ipsius,

repugnans notae repugnat rei ipsi.3

That which enters into the comprehension of a note

(M) enters also into the comprehension of the subject
possessing this note ; that which is excluded from the
comprehension of a note is also excluded from the com¬
prehension of the subject possessing this note.
Thus in the syllogism “ Every man is mortal, but Peter
is a man, therefore Peter is mortal,” “ mortal ” which
enters into the comprehension of the note “ man ” also
enters into the comprehension of the subject “ Peter ”
which possesses this note.
This principle nota notae is assuredly true, but it is
inadequate. 1 It does not make clear that which con¬
stitutes the essential force, the raison d'itre of the syllogism,

1 I say communicable. In a syllogism of the third figure : “ Every man is

fallible, but every man is an intelligent being, therefore some intelligent being
is fallible,” the M is the subject in both premisses, and therefore is not com¬
municated to the t in the Minor. But it is communicable to the t (it suffices to
convert the Minor to communicate it to the t, the truth expressed by the proposi¬
tion remaining the same), and it is in virtue of this communicability of the M
to the t that the T itself is communicated to the t. This is not the case in exposi¬
tory syllogisms (see below, No. ,,85) ; the converted Minor (e.g., “ some
apostle was Judas ”) does not really communicate the M to the t here (for
inasmuch as the M is singular it is incommunicable).
2 Cf. Aristotle, Eth. Nich., VI, 3, 1139 b, 28 ; 6 St ov\\<ryi<r/xbs Ik rtvv KadS\ov,
Anal. Post., I, 18, 81 a, 40 : «<tti S’t) psv airiSti^ Ik tuv Kadixou ; Metaph.,
M, 4, 1078 b, 24 : apxll St tavWoyLOficuy rb rl tony ; Z, 9, IO34 a, 31 : Sxnrtp
tv Tois a vWuy to p.ots irdvruv ipxv V ova!a ’Ek yap tov tI tony ol avWoytouol itotv.
Cf. Anal. Post., II, beginning of 3. We shall meet this important thesis again
in Major Logic.
3 Cf. Kant, iiber die falsche Spitzfindigkeit der 4 syll. Fig., § 2.—J. Lachelier,
Etudes sur le Syllogisme.
 REASONING
179
viz., the universal. Why must the note Mortal which belongs
to the note Man also belong to the subject Peter ? . . .
Because the note Mortal, like the note Man, is an objective
concept communicable to many (a universal) and
because, from the very nature of a universal, what is
affirmed without restriction of Man must also be affirmed
of all the subjects in which this universal is actualized.
Thus the principle nota notae itself, presupposes the
principle dictum de omni.1 2 By the very fact that it
neglects the essential importance of the universal in the
syllogism, the principle nota notae also neglects to make
known the conditions which depend upon the extension of
terms, and are indispensable for the validity of reasoning.
“ That which enters (by means of a judgment) into the
comprehension of a note enters also into the comprehension
of the subject possessing this note.” By itself this principle
does not tell us that this note (M) must be taken universally
at least once in order for the syllogism to be valid. Given
a defective syllogism, such as, “ some man is a liar,
but Peter is a man, therefore Peter is a liar ” ; were one
to neglect to consider the extension of terms (and thus
appeal implicitly to the dictum de omni), one might fancy
that this syllogism satisfies the requirements of the prin¬
ciple nota notae ; for the note Liar is certainly placed by
the Major into the comprehension 1 2 of the note Man,
which itself belongs to the subject Peter.
Thus the principle nota notae is not the true formulation
of the supreme principle of the syllogism. The principle
dictum de omni, on the contrary, is founded on the very
nature of the universal (not that it considers extension

1 Cf. T. Richard, Philos, du Raisonnement dans la science, Chap. VI.

2 In the sense in which every judgment makes the Pr. enter into the “ com¬
prehension ” of the S. See above, No. 52.—Undoubtedly liar does not enter
into the comprehension of man taken in itself, but in constructing the theory
of reasoning it is an error to consider the comprehension of concepts only as
taken in themselves. The proposition and the judgment have the express power
of making predicates that are not essential to it enter into the “ comprehen¬
sion ” of the subject (whose concept is thus restricted or individualized). Since
the proposition is the proximate matter of the reasoning, it is then absolutely
necessary to take this fact into account in the theory of reasoning, and con¬
sequently to make clear the conditions for validity which depend upon the
extension of terms, and which require that the Major in the first figure be
universal.
 l80 LOGIC

exclusively, for the extension of a universal is a property

that presupposes its comprehension, but what it does
consider directly is the communicability of the universal to
the subjects in which it is realized) ; and by that very
fact it makes clear the conditions of validity which depend
upon extension. Also, because it penetrates to the heart
of the syllogism, this principle has universal jurisdiction
over the syllogism, whereas the principle nota notae obtains
only in regard to the first figure. To adopt the latter
principle would entail the adoption of some other funda¬
mental principle for each of the other two figures ; and
we would have to say with Mr. Lachelier 1 that each of
the three figures of the syllogism has a supreme principle
proper to it, which would destroy the generic unity of
the categorical syllogism. Mr. Lachelier is quite right
in saying that syllogisms of the second and third figures
are really valid by themselves and need not be demon¬
strated, even though they may be reduced to the first
figure, as the imperfect to the perfect ; but the fact
remains that they do not each have their proper supreme
principle ; they simply require that the double supreme
principle common to all three figures (dictum de omni,
dictum de nullo) be particularized for each of them by a
special determination (see below, No. 79, inset).

72. rules of the syllogism. But how must we proceed in

order to apply these supreme principles correctly ? The
answer to this question is contained in the rules or laws of
the syllogism.
The principal rules which every valid syllogism must
obey may be reduced to three.
Beware of
reasoning
1 No syllogism may have more than three terms. In the last
with four
terms,
analysis every syllogism defective on the side of the terms
violates this rule.
Obviously if, instead of having T identical with M and t
identical with M (three terms : middle term M), we have T
identical with M and t identical with M' (four terms :
middle term M and M') then T will not be identical with t.

1 J. Lachelier, Etudes sur le Syllogismc.

 REASONING 181

2 From two negative premisses no conclusion follows. or of using

two nega¬
In order that T may be identified with t, T and t must tive
premisses,
be identified with M (in positive premisses).
In order that T may be declared non-identical with t,
T must be said to be identical with M, and t non-identical
with M (one positive premise, the other negative), or T
must be said to be non-identical with M, and t identical
with M (one negative premise, the other positive).
3 From two particular premisses no conclusion follows. or of using
two par¬
As there is, in this case, no term (M) which is taken universally ticular
premisses.
{at least once), so that this universal term, being itself identified
with, or separated from, a T, may constrain the mind to
affirm or deny this T of a t contained under it.
Logicians have laid down eight laws or rules of the syllo¬
gism, of which the first four concern terms and the remaining
four concern propositions.
Rule I is the first one stated above and the following three
may be reduced to it. Rules 5 and 8 are the last two stated
above ; and they are completed by rules 6 and 7, which
are immediate applications of the supreme principles of
the syllogism.
In order to facilitate the work of the memory logicians
have had recourse to poetry and have formulated these
rules in eight Latin lines :
*

1. Terminus esto triplex : major mediusque minorque.

2. Latins hos quam praemissae conclusio non vult.
3. Nequaquam medium capiat conclusio oportet.
4. Aut semel aut iterum medius generaliter esto.
5. Utraque si praemissa neget, nihil inde sequetur.
6. Ambae ajfirmantes nequeunt generare negantem.
7. Pejorem semper sequitur conclusio partem.
8. Nil sequitur geminis ex particularibus unquam.

1. Only three terms, Major, Middle and Minor.

2. They must never be broader in the Conclusion
than in the Premisses.
3. The Middle Term must never enter into the
Conclusion.
4. But it must be universal at least once.
5. From two negative premisses nothing follows.
182 LOGIC

6. When the premisses are affirmative, the conclusion

must not be negative.
7. The Conclusion always follows the inferior Premise.1
8. From two Particulars nothing follows.
*{a) rule 1. Do not say : “ The bull bellows,
but the bull is a constellation,
therefore a constellation bellows.”
Nor : “ Animality 2 is a generic notion,
but man often cedes to animality,3
therefore man often cedes to a generic
notion.”
rule 2. Do not say : “ Birds fly,
but birds are animals,
therefore every animal flies.”
(In the minor, Animals is taken particularly, being the
Pr. of an affirmative proposition, in the conclusion it is
taken universally. Therefore the syllogism really has four
terms and violates the first rule.)
Nor : “ The mind is endowed with activity,
but matter is not mind,
therefore matter is not endowed with activity.”
(In the major the T is taken particularly, because it is
the Pr. of an affirmative, but in the conclusion it is taken
universally because it is the Pr. of a Negative.)
Nor : “ Everything that thinks exists,
but no corporeal substance thinks,
therefore no corporeal substance exists.”

rule 3. Do not say : “ Every plant is a living thing,

but every animal is a living thing,
therefore every living thing is a plant or an
animal.”
(This syllogism violates the second rule.)

1 That which wc are calling the inferior part or premise here is the negative
or particular premise.
2 Logical suppositio.
3 Real suppositio.—A syllogism may in reality have four terms even though it
apparently or verbally has but three, if a word is taken in two different senses,
or if, having properly speaking the same signification, it “ stands for ” different
things.
 REASONING 183

rule 4. Do not say : “ Some men are saints,

but criminals are men,
therefore criminals are saints.”
(In the major, men is taken particularly and stands fpr
certain (good) men ; in the minor it is also taken particu¬
larly, but stands for certain (bad) men. Therefore t is
identified with one part of M, and T with another part
of M, and the reasoning thus has in reality four terms.)
Do not say : “ Animals are irrational,
but man is an animal,
therefore man is irrational.”
(In the major the indefinite term “ animals ” stands for
certain animals (beasts).)
Nor : “ Every plant is alive,
but every animal is alive,
therefore every animal is a plant.”

rule 5. Do not say : “ The powerful are not merciful,

but the poor are not powerful,
therefore the poor are merciful.”
(If neither of the terms is applicable to the third term,
it is obvious that we cannot infer that the extremes are
or are not united to each other.)

rule 6. Do not say : “ Everything that offends God

must be hated,
but every lie offends God,
therefore some lie must not be hated.”

rule 7. Do not say : “ Every sin against charity must

be avoided,
but some severity sins against charity,
therefore all severity must be avoided.”
(This syllogism violates rule 2.)
Nor : “ No human device can be absolutely
perfect,
but the social order is a human device,
therefore the social order can be absolutely
perfect.”
184 LOGIC

rule 8. Do not say : “ Some men are virtuous,

but some evil-doers are men,
therefore some evil-doers are virtuous.” 1
(This violates rule 4.)
Nor that: “ Some intelligent creature is mortal,
but some corporeal living beings are not
intelligent creatures,
therefore some corporeal living beings are not
mortal.”
(This syllogism violates rule 2. The Pr. is taken par¬
ticularly in the major, universally in the conclusion.)
It is easy to see that these eight rules derive from the
very nature of the syllogism, as more particular determina¬
tions of the supreme principle : Two things identical with
a same third thing are identical with each other, two things, one
of which is identical, the other not identical with a same third
thing, are different from each other, and the two principles
that are joined to it (dictum de omni, dictum de nullo).
They do not add anything new to these principles,
but they are of practical utility because they regulate
the syllogism at closer range.
*(b) exercise. (1) Indicate whether or not the fol¬
lowing syllogisms are defective, and, if so, which rules
they transgress :
I Every great truth is difficult to understand,
but Schelling’s System is difficult to understand,
therefore Schelling’s system is a great truth.
II The Encyclopedists are poor philosophers,
but the Encyclopedists are French philosophers,
therefore French philosophers are poor philos¬
ophers.
1 A syllogism such as :
some mushrooms are poisonous,
but some vegetables are mushrooms,
therefore some vegetables are poisonous,
is really defective and violates rule 4. The conclusion is true only by accident
in virtue of the matter, because it so happens that the M is a part of the t.
To reason correctly in such a case, we would have to say :
some mushrooms are poisonous,
but every mushroom is a vegetable,
therefore some vegetable is poisonous.
(Syllogism of the third figure, in Disamis.)
 REASONING 185

III Some French philosophers are good philosophers,

but the Encyclopedists are French philosophers,
therefore the Encyclopedists are good philos¬
ophers.
IV Delicate people are unfortunate,
but poets are delicate people,
therefore poets are unfortunate.
V Everything useful to man is good,
but sidereal astronomy is not useful to man,
therefore sidereal astronomy is not good.
VI Some fearlessness is virtuous,
but impudence is fearlessness,
therefore impudence is virtuous.
VII Everything that turns us away from God is evil,
but some joys turn us away from God,
therefore every joy is evil.
(2) Find examples of syllogisms that transgress the
various syllogistic rules.

2. Figures and Moods of the Syllogism 1/

73. the form of the syllogism. Like every work of art The figure
of a syllo¬
the syllogism is made up of a matter and a. form. As we have gism is
the dis¬
seen above (No. 69) the matter of the syllogism is double : position of
the terms
remote matter (the terms) and proximate matter (the proposi¬ in the
premisses.
tions) .
The form (in the broad sense) of the syllogism corre¬
sponds to this double matter, and is also double :
the disposition of the terms in the premisses, according The mood
of the
to which one is the S. and the other the Pr.1 is called the syllogism
is the dis¬
Figure of the syllogism.2 position
of the pre¬
the disposition of the propositions themselves according misses
themselves
to quantity and quality is called the Mood of the syllogism. in the
argumen¬
tation.
1 “ Dicitur figura ordo trium terminorum secundum subjectionem et
praedicationem ” (Sum. Logicae, X, 4). This definition is not taken from the
simple grammatical position of the terms in the oral proposition, but from some¬
thing much more fundamental,—namely from the logical relations implied
in thought by the function of Pr. and S. In the strict sense the form of the
syllogism is the inference.
2 The word “ figure ” is used by analogy with the triangular “ figure.” In
the triangle three points unite three lines, in a syllogism three terms unite
three propositions. And just as there are three kinds of triangles (equilateral,
isosceles, and scalene) so will there be three figures of the syllogism.
 186 LOGIC

There are 74. DIVISION OF THE SYLLOGISM BY REASON OF ITS FIGURE.

three syl¬
logistic In how many different ways may we dispose the terms in
figures.
the premisses of a syllogism ?
The M may be
Sub-prae. (I) S. in the Major
and Pr. in the Minor,
or else
Prae-prae. (II) Pr. in the Major
and Pr. in the Minor,
or
Sub-sub. (III) S. in the Major
and S. in the Minor.
Thus there are three figures of the syllogism : they may be
represented by the abbreviations : sub-prae 1 (first figure),
prae-prae (second figure), sub-sub (third figure) :
Sub-prae prima, bis prae secunda, tertia sub bis.
Finally the M may be
Pr. in the Major
and S. in the Minor.
This is the indirect first figure, prae-sub.
There are no other possible combinations. Thus we have
the four following dispositions :

THE FIGURES OF THE SYLLOGISM

First Figure Second Figure Third Figure Indirect First

sub-prae prae-prae sub-sub prae-sub

Maj. =M. . T T . . . . M M . . . . T T . . . . M
Min. =t . . M t . . . . M M . . . . t M. . . . t

Concl.=t . . T t . . . . T t . . . . T t . . . . T

The indirect first figure is also called the Galenic figure from
the physician, Galen (a.d. 131-200), who is said to have
considered it as a separate figure fa fourth figure). Aristotle
and all the ancient logicians refuse to consider it as a distinct

1 That is to say, the middle term is subjcctum (in the Major) and />ra*dicatum
(in the Minor).
 \ REASONING l87
figure because it always concludes indirectly,1 and thus to
conclude directly must of its very nature be reduced to the
first figure. It is in reality but the first figure concluding
indirectly by the transposition of the premisses.
M T
Every man is mortal
t M
First Figure
but Peter is a man
t T
therefore Peter is mortal
By inverting the premisses, that is by making T of t,
and t of T, we have :
T M
Peter is a man
M t
but every man is mortal Indirect First
t Figure
therefore some mortal is
T
Peter
1 A proposition is indirect or unnatural (e.g., “ some mortal is Peter,” cf.
No. 52, note 30) when the term to which the mind really applies a determina¬
tion is not the subject of the proposition, as it should be, but the predicate.
In this case, it is more a grammatical than a logical Pr., and seems to have
a smaller extension than the S. of the proposition—(although as a matter of
fact the extension of both S. and Pr. are equal because they both “ stand for ”
exactly the same thing). Thus a syllogism of the fourth figure is said to con¬
clude indirectly because the Conclusion of such a syllogism has for its S. the
term which in the natural order would be the Pr. ; in other words, the t (of
the direct figure) is the Pr. of the indirect figure, and the T (of the direct
figure) is its S.
It is evident then that, although the fourth figure is a grammatical figure
it is not a distinct logical figure : in that which concerns thought the grammatical
predicate of the conclusion is in reality its subject. For this reason every true
logician must reject the fourth figure and consider it only as the indirect first.
The theory attributed to Galen by the Arabs (“ although,” as Leibnitz remarks
—New Essays on Human Understanding, Bk. IV, Chap. II, § 1,—“ we found
nothing concerning it in the works of his remaining to us ”) may be regarded
as the first concession made by Logic in face of the temptation to consider
words rather than thought, a fatal temptation which had already beset it
for a long time (Alexander of Aphrodisus was already saying : 0! Se reurepoi
Tail \eUalv ^rraKo\ovdoovTes, ovkcti 86 to?s o-n/aaivo/xlvo^s, ad Anal. pr. f. 154 A)
and to which it has completely abandoned itself at the hands of many
moderns. As Lachelier remarks (note written for Rabier’s Logic, p. 66) :
Galen’s radically false idea “ was combated by all the logicians of the Middle
Ages, and began to come into favour only during the Renaissance.” [N.B.
This is not Lachelier’s note, but Rabier’s own statement, and is to be found in
the text, not in a note, Logic, p. 66, Paris, i38o, Hachette. Tr.]
 188 LOGIC

The conclusion is an indirect proposition.

Be careful not to mistake a syllogism such as : “ Peter
is a man, but every man is mortal, therefore Peter is
mortal,” for a syllogism of the indirect first figure. This
is simply a badly constructed syllogism of the first figure ;
for since Peter is the S. of the Conclusion, and consequently
t, the premise “ Peter is a man ” is the Minor (the premise
containing the t and the M) and should therefore come
second (see above, No. 69 N.B.).

75. DIVISION OF THE SYLLOGISM BY REASON OF ITS MOOD.

Let us consider the mood, that is, the disposition of the pre¬
misses themselves according to quantity and quality. From
this point of view how many possible combinations are there ?
Each of the two premisses may be universal and affirmative
(A), universal and negative (B), particular and affirmative
(I), particular and negative (O) : thus we have four cases
in which to consider the Major, and in each of them, four
cases in which to consider the Minor ; in all—sixteen com¬
binations possible a priori.
Major : A AAA EEEE 1111 OOOO

Minor: AEIO AEIO AEIO AEIO

There are As each of these sixteen moods may be found in each of
sixteen
possible the four figures, the total number of possible combinations
moods for
each figure. is 16 X 4 = 64.
But are all these combinations legitimate ? No, a great
many of them violate one or more of the rules of the
syllogism, as may easily be seen upon analysis.

For example, the combination A E in the first figure

(wherein the M is the S. of the Major and the Pr. of the
Minor).

(A) Every man is an animal,

(E) but no horse is a man,
therefore . . . , obviously no conclusion can
follow ; the Conclusion, which should be negative
(rule 7), “ No horse is an animal,” would violate rule 2.
 REASONING 189

The invalidity of each of the forty-five illegitimate

moods of the syllogism may easily be verified in the same
way.

As a matter of fact there are but nineteen legitimate But of the

sixty-four
combinations : possible
moods
only
4 for the first figure nineteen
are
5 for the indirect first conclusive.
4 for the second
6 for the third figure.

Logicians have grouped these nineteen legitimate moods

of the syllogism in four famous lines that are truly a mnemo-
technical masterpiece. The first three vowels 1 of the con¬
ventional words of which these lines are composed, represent
in order 2 the Major, the Minor, and the Conclusion, which,
as we know, may be either A, E, I or O. Certain con-

1 When these conventional words have more than three syllables, e.g.,
FrisesomoTum, the extra syllables are but stopgaps, and have no symbolic
meaning.
1 An exception is made for the words relating to the moods of the indirect
first figure, the first vowel of which stands for the minor, and the second for
the major (due to the fact that the proposition which is the Major in the first
figure is the Minor in the indirect first). Thus a syllogism in Celantes would
be :
M t
CE No philosopher is an angel, (Min.)
T M
LAn but Descartes is a philosopher, (Maj.)
t T
TEs therefore no angel is Descartes.
This may be reduced to the first direct figure (Celarent) by purely and simply
restoring to the first proposition its function as Major (that is by making
angel the T, and Descartes the t).
M T
CE No philosopher is an angel (Maj-)
t M
1A but Descartes is a philosopher (Min.)
rEnt therefore Descartes is not an angel.
A syllogism in Baralipton (every artist is imaginative, but every poet is an
artist, therefore some imaginative (being) is a poet) may likewise be reduced
to a syllogism in Barbara (every artist is imaginative, but every poet is an artist,
therefore every poet is imaginative). Note that the conclusion of the syllogism
in Baralipton (affirmative, hence its Pr. has a particular suppositio) may be
legitimately converted into the universal conclusion of the syllogism in Barbara
only because it already was this same universal conclusion formulated in an indirect
proposition (cf. Javelli, Logicae compendium peripateticae, Venetiis, 1541, tract,
sextus, cap. II). Therefore the logicians who hold that the fourth figure is a
distinct and separate figure should not consider the reduction of Bamalip to
Barbara as valid.
igo LOGIC

sonants also have a meaning of their own, as we shall see

further on. The figure of the syllogism, however, is not
indicated in these lines. We have to remember that the
first four words relate to the first figure, the next five to the
indirect first, etc.
Here is the mnemonic formula 1 :
First figure. Barbara, Celarent, Darii, Ferio.//
Baralipton, Celantes, Dabitis, Fapesmo,
Frisesomorum.// .... First indir.
Second figure. Cesare, Camestres, Festino,
Baroco.//Darapti, Felapton, Disamis,
Datisi, Bocardo, Ferison .... Third figure
Remember that in the syllogism every singular term is
equivalent to a universal term, in the sense that, since its
extension is restricted to one determinate individual it
evidently embraces the entire extent of the subject it sig¬
nifies without having its own already restricted extension
restricted the more. From this point of view “ Peter is a
man,” “ Descartes is a philosopher ” equals an affirmative
proposition (A), and the syllogism : “ Every man is mortal,
Peter is a man, therefore Peter is mortal ” is a syllogism in
Barbara. For this reason the theory of the syllogism takes
into account only universal propositions (into which are
assimilated singular propositions) and particular proposi¬
tions.2
1 The modern logicians, who hold that the fourth is a distinct figure, arrange
the mnemonic formula of the legitimate moods of the syllogism in the follow¬
ing manner :
Barbara, Celarent, primae Darii Ferioque.
Cesare, Camestres, Festino, Baroco secundae.
Tertia grande sonans recitat : Darapti, Felapton,
Disamis, Datisi, Bocardo, Ferison, Quartae
Sunt Bamalip, Calemes, Dimatis, Fesapo, Fresison.
In this arrangement the words relating to the fourth figure, like those of the
other figures (Bamalip, etc.) represent the Major by their first syllable, and the
Minor by their second. Thus a syllogism in Calemes, for example, would be :
T M
cA Descartes is a philosopher (Maj.)
M t
lEm but no philosopher is an angel (Min.)
Es therefore no angel is Descartes.
2 It is nevertheless obvious that a singular affirmative proposition used as
Major would in no way equal an A proposition. A syllogism such as “ this
man is a liar, but Peter is a man, therefore Peter is a liar,” is not a syllogism in
Barbara, but a defective syllogism violating rule 4.
 REASONING 191

In order to construct one of the syllogisms to which

each of those conventional words is a key, begin by con¬
structing the schema of the figure which will indicate the
place of M in the premisses ; then, with the help of the
characteristic vowels of the key word, write in the quan¬
tity and the quality of each proposition (the mood of
syllogism). Finally, fill in this framework with three
suitable concepts.
For example, let us construct a syllogism in Baroco
(a syllogism whose unnatural turn of expression clearly
shows the derivation of the word baroque). Since this
syllogism belongs to the second figure (prae-prae) we will
have :
(Maj.) T M
(Min.) t M

(Concl.) t T
The characteristic vowels of the key word indicate the
following quantity and quality :
(Maj.) T M
bAr Every.is.
(Min.) t M
Oc But some.is not.

(Concl.) t T
0 therefore some.is not.

Now it is easy to find appropriate terms with which to fill

in this framework,1 e.g. :

Bar Every bird has wings,

oc but some vertebrate does not have wings,
0 therefore some vertebrate is not a bird.

N.B.—These are purely logical exercises which have

as their purpose the familiarization of the mind with the
form of the syllogism, abstracting from the intrinsic value

1 It is easier to do this by beginning with the conclusion. For example,

given “ Some man is not a liar ’’—place the t (some man) and the T (liar)
in their proper positions in the premisses : “ Every liar is ... , but some man
is no. . . . Now there remains only to find a suitable M, for instance : “lazy.”
 192 LOGIC

of the content, which, on the contrary, is chosen from

among the simplest and commonest things in order to
facilitate this task. Therefore it would be utterly absurd to
pretend to judge the value of the syllogism as an instrument
of scientific progress from such exercises and examples.
We might add that these exercises are among the most
useful of intellectual gymnastics, and, moreover, extremely
fascinating to anyone interested in discovering the
mechanism of his own thought. Playing at constructing
syllogisms in different moods could be as entertaining
a “ parlour game ” as anagrams—and we recommend it
as such to students.
*76. LEGITIMATE MOODS OF THE FIRST FIGURE (Sub-prae).
The schema of this figure is :
M.T
t.M

t T
moods’of1* Special rule for the first (direct) figure : In the first (direct) figure,
figrire^4 ^he Major can never be particular, nor the Minor negatived [If
a<a—a the Major were particular, and the Minor affirmative,
rule 4 would be violated. If the Minor were negative, we
a<a—e should have—rule 7—a negative conclusion, and then we
would be violating rule 2 or 5.) In applying this special
rule it is easy to see how, of the sixteen combinations that
are possible a priori for the first figure, only four are valid :
AAA, EAE, All, EIO.
First Mood
M T
Bar EVERY LIVING BEING BREATHES,

t M
ba BUT EVERY PLANT IS A LIVING BEING,

t T
ra THEREFORE EVERY PLANT BREATHES.2

1 Sit minor affirmans, nec major particulars.

3
Despite appearances a syllogism such as “ That which is not composed
is of itself indivisible, but the soul is not composed, therefore the soul is of
itself indivisible, is a valid syllogism in Barbara. For the Minor is only appar¬
ently negative,; it really means : “ the human soul is a thing which is not
composed.”
 REASONING *93
From the point of view of extension this syllogism may be
represented as :

ba t is in M

ra t is in T

Considering the Major and the Conclusion from the

point of view of comprehension, and the Minor from the
point of view of extension (see above, No. 70) we have
the following schema (wherein the Pr. of the Major, in this
case the T), is represented by the shading on the S. of the
Major, in this case the M.

Bar M has the attribute T

ba

ra t has the attribute T

!94 LOGIC

Second Mood

Schema in extension Schema in comprehension

and extension

t
THEREFORE NO MANIAC

T
HATES LIFE

Third Mood

M
Da ALL THAT ENCOURAGES

T
EVIL IS PERNICIOUS

t
T
ri BUT INDULGENCE OF

M
CERTAIN KINDS ENCOURAGES

EVIL

t
THEREFORE INDULGENCE

OF CERTAIN KINDS IS

T
PERNICIOUS
 REASONING
*95

Fourth Mood

M
Fe NOTHING PERNICIOUS IS

T
COMMENDABLE

t
BUT SOME INDULGENCE IS

M
PERNICIOUS

t
O THEREFORE SOME INDULGENCE

T
IS NOT COMMENDABLE

*77. LEGITIMATE MOODS OF THE SECOND FIGURE (prae-

prae). The schema of this figure is :

T M
t M

t T

Special rule for the second figure : In the second figure one of the Legitimate
premisses must be negative, and the Major cannot be particular.1 Second
(If the two premisses were affirmative, the M would be the f,guE_E
Pr. in both premisses and we would violate rule 4. If the 0-0
Major were particular, we would violate rule 2.) By apply- A_E
ing this special rule, and the general rule 5, it is easy to 1—0
see why, out of the sixteen combinations possible a priori
for the second figure, only four are valid : E A E, A E E ,
E I O, A O O.

1 “ Una negans praeeat, nec major sit specialis.”

ig6 LOGIC

Schema in extension Schema in comprehen¬

sion and extension 1

T M
ces NO BITTER MAN HAS PEACE

t M
BUT EVERY SAINT HAS PEACE

t
THEREFORE NO SAINT IS A

T
BITTER MAN

II

cam EVERY JEALOUS PERSON IS

M
BITTER

t M
es BUT NO SAINT IS BITTER

t
tres THEREFORE NO SAINT IS A

T
JEALOUS PERSON

III

T M
Fes NO SAINT IS ARROGANT

t
ti BUT SOME REFORMER IS

M
ARROGANT

T
no THEREFORE SOME REFORMER

T
IS NOT A SAINT

1 Here the shading represents M (the Pr. of the Major).

 REASONING
*97
IV

T M
Bar EVERY FOOL IS ANNOYING

t
OC BUT SOME CHATTER-BOX IS

M
NOT ANNOYING

O THEREFORE SOME CHATTER¬

BOX IS NOT A FOOL

78. LEGITIMATE MOODS OF THE THIRD FIGURE (sub-sub).

The schema of this figure is :

M.T
M.t

t T

Special rule for the third figure : In the third figure the Minor
must always be affirmative and the Conclusion particular (If .x
the Minor were negative, the Major would be affirmative— Legitimate
rule 5—and the Conclusion negative—rule 7—then the T SSdfi^re6
would be taken particularly in the Major, and universally A<jViI
in the Conclusion, and we would violate rule 2. If the Con- e<a—o

elusion were universal, the t would be broader in the Con- T

elusion than in the Minor, which would also violate rule 2. o—a—o
In the Minor the t is, in fact, taken particularly, since it is
the Pr. of an affirmative.)
By applying this special rule and the general rule 8, it
becomes apparent that, of the sixteen combinations possible
a priori for the third figure, only six are legitimate : A A I,
E A O, I A I, A 11, O A O, E I O.

1 “ Sit minor affirmans, conclusio par Ocularis."

198 LOGIC

I
Schema in extension Schema in compre¬
hension and extension.1

M
Da EVERY CENTAUR IS

T
HALF-MAN, HALF-HORSE

M
ra BUT EVERY CENTAUR IS

t
A FABULOUS BEING

ti THEREFORE SOME

FABULOUS BEING IS

T
HALF-MAN, HALF-HORSE

II

M
Fe NO ANIMAL IS

T
INCORRUPTIBLE

M
lap BUT EVERY ANIMAL IS

A LIVING BEING

ton THEREFORE SOME

LIVING BEING IS NOT

T
INCORRUPTIBLE

1 Here the shading stands for T (the Pr. of the Major), as in the schemas of
the first figure.
 REASONING r99

III

M
Dis SOME RICH MAN
T
IS MERCIFUL

M
am BUT EVERY RICH MAN
t
IS FEARED

t
is THEREFORE SOME MAN
WHO IS FEARED IS
T
MERCIFUL

IV

M T
Da EVERY ANIMAL IS CORPOREAL

M
tis BUT SOME ANIMAL IS AN
t
INTELLIGENT BEING

i THEREFORE SOME
t
INTELLIGENT BEING IS
T
CORPOREAL
200 LOGIC

V
M
BOC SOME DIPLOMAT IS

T
NOT HONEST

M
ar BUT EVERY DIPLOMAT

t
IS POWERFUL

do THEREFORE SOME

t
powerful (man) is

T
NOT HONEST

VI

Fe NO AMBITIOUS MAN IS

UNSELFISH

M
ris BUT SOME AMBITIOUS

MAN IS A

PHILANTHROPIST

On THEREFORE SOME

t
PHILANTHROPIST IS

T
NOT UNSELFISH

*79. reduction of moods. The four moods of the first

figure are said to be perfect because they are immediately
regulated by the double supreme principle of the syllogism,
dictum de omni, dictum de nullo (see above, No. 71) : for in
these moods the extension of T is larger than that of M, which
 REASONING 201

is in turn larger than that of t : T>M>t, Here the T is

only the Pr., the t only the S., and the M itself, being S. in
the Major and Pr. in the Minor, has the position of a mean
in the premisses.1
All the other moods are said to be imperfect, because this
double supreme principle is not so clearly evinced in them ;
it regulates them only mediately, by means of some par¬
ticular determination. If we wish to apply the dictum de
omni or de nullo immediately, without the intermediation
of these particular determinations, the imperfect moods
must be reduced to perfect moods.2

In the second figure the extension of T is smaller than

that of M, and greater than that of t : M>T>t. The
double supreme principle is therefore applicable only
under a special determination, which some authors
call the “ dictum de diverso.” If a certain attribute (M)
may be affirmed or denied of a universal subject (T),
everything (t) of which this same attribute cannot be
affirmed or denied is not contained under this subject.
Si aliquod attributum potest praedicari affirmative aut negative
de quodam termino, non continetur sub illo termino omne de quo
illud attributum praedicari nequit (affirmative aut negative).
In the third figure the extension of T is greater than
that of M, but the latter’s extension is smaller than that

1 Cf. Aristotle, Anal. Pr., I, 4, 25 b, 32.

* We believe this to be Aristotle’s true meaning.—To say that, in order to
furnish conclusive evidence, imperfect syllogisms need something other than
that which is made known by their premisses (cf. Anal. Pr., I, 1, 24-26) is not
equivalent to saying that in order to provide adequate evidence the M must,
by suitable treatment, be given the same position that it has in the first figure,
or in other words that these syllogisms must be reduced to the first figure, and
thus be true syllogisms only on condition that they no longer be themselves.
This statement signifies equally that : in order that imperfect syllogisms
furnish conclusive evidence, it is necessary to distinguish in them not only
the logical relations which, in the first figure, immediately manifest the supreme
principle of the syllogism, but also those logical relations which suppose the
application of a special principle particularizing this supreme principle.
If it is not true that the second and third figures each have their own supreme
principle independent of the first principle of the first figure—as Mr. Lachelier
would have it (see above, No. 71, inset). But this does not mean to say
that the syllogisms of the second and third figure are not conclusive by
themselves, do not produce conclusive evidence by themselves, or that they
render the conclusion necessary, only in virtue of the first figure to which they
may be reduced. On the contrary, they are valid in their own right, and, in
certain cases, their use is to be preferred (see below, No. 80).
 202 LOGIC

of t : T>t>M. The double supreme principle of the

syllogism applies here only under a special determination
which some authors call the “ dictum de parte,” and
others—following A. Lambert (disciple of Leibnitz, con¬
temporary with Kant) the “ dictum de exemplo ” :
two terms that contain a part in common (M) are par¬
tially alike ; but if the one contains a part that the other
does not contain, they are partially different from each
other. Duo termini, qui continent aliquam partem communem,
partim conveniunt; si autem unus continet partam, quam alter
non continet, partim differunt.1

Reduction Every imperfect mood has its perfect correspondent in

is direct
or per one of the moods of the first figure : Every A conclusion is
impossibile.
inferred in the most perfect manner in Barbara, every E
conclusion in Ferio, every I in Darii, and every O in Ferio.
How is this reduction of imperfect moods to perfect effected ?
We may distinguish here between two types of reduction :
ostensible or direct reduction, wherein we draw the same
conclusion from the perfect syllogism as was drawn from
the imperfect syllogism under consideration ; or by reduc¬
tion per impossibile wherein we prove the validity of the imper¬
fect syllogism in question by showing, in a perfect syllogism,
that if anyone deny the conclusion of this imperfect syl¬
logism the while he accord its premisses, he contradicts
himself. (All the imperfect moods may be reduced to
perfect moods per impossibile, but two of them, Baroco and
Bocardo, do not admit of reduction by any other method.)
In direct reduction we have recourse to two operations,
i the conversion of one of the propositions of the imperfect
syllogism in question, 2 the mutation or transposition of the
Major into the Minor.
In reduction per impossibile, we grant the premisses and deny
the conclusion. Then we form the contradictory of this
conclusion, and substitute it for one of the premisses. From
this there follows (in a perfect syllogism) a conclusion that
is contradictory to this very premise (which had been
granted by hypotheses).

1 Cf. Gredt, Elemenla philosophiae aristotelico—thomisticae, I.ogica formalis,

cap. III.
 REASONING 203

The manner in which each imperfect syllogism should

be reduced is indicated by certain consonants in the mnemonic
words (Cesare, Camestres, etc.). These consonants indicate
the operations to which the proposition represented by
the preceding vowel should be submitted.
S. indicates that the proposition symbolized by the
preceding vowel should be converted simply.
P. indicates that this proposition should be converted
per accidens.
M. indicates that the premisses must be transposed.
C. indicates that reduction per impossibile is the only
practicable method.
These symbols are summed up in the two following Latin
lines :
S vult simpliciter verti, P vero per accid,
M vult mutari, C per impossibile duci.
Note that the initial consonant of a mood indicates that it
must be reduced to the perfect mood beginning with the
same consonant. For instance Festino should be reduced to
Ferio.
For example, given to reduce a syllogism in Camestres to
the perfect mood.
caM Every jealous man is bitter,
eS but no saint is bitter,
treS therefore no saint is a jealous man.
As the initial C indicates, this syllogism may be reduced
to a syllogism in Celarent. To do this we must (1) (consonant
M) transpose the premisses, and (2) (consonant S) convert
the minor and the conclusion “ simply.”
ce No bitter man is a saint,
la but every jealous man is bitter,
rent therefore no jealous man is a saint.
Or, again, let us reduce a syllogism in Felapton to a perfect
mood :
fe No animal is incorruptible,
laP but every animal is a living being,
Ton therefore some living being is not incorruptible.
204 LOGIC

This is reducible to a syllogism in Ferio, initial F. To do

this we need only (consonant P) convert the minor per
accidens “ by accident.”
fe No animal is incorruptible,
ri but some living being is an animal,
o therefore some living being is not incorruptible.
Finally, let us reduce a syllogism in Baroco to a perfect
mood :
bar Every fool is annoying,
oC but some chatterbox is not annoying,
o therefore some chatterbox is not a fool.
This syllogism may be reduced to Barbara (initial B). As
the consonant C indicates, we shall have to proceed per
impossible,1 that is to say, we shall have to, 1 suppose that
some adversary, in declaring this syllogism invalid, denies
the Conclusion but grants the premisses; 2 replace one of
the premisses (the Minor here, since it is followed by C), by
the contradictory of the conclusion ; 3 reason in a syllo¬
gism in Barbara :
bar Every fool is annoying,
ba but every chatterbox is a fool,
ra therefore every chatterbox is annoying.
1 Baroco and Bocardo which are reducible only per impossible, are reduced to
the perfect mood starting with the same consonant in the mnemonic lines,
viz. : Barbara. But the same is not true of the reduction per impossible of the
other moods (for the first consonant of the symbolic word was chosen in rela¬
tion to the perfect mood to which these moods may be reduced directly).
The vowels in the following lines indicate the conclusion of the perfect mood
to which the imperfect moods may be reduced per impossible :
Ind. First Fig. Second Fig. Third Fig.
Febiferaxis Obit Terras Spheramque quoiannis
Other logicians propose the following :
Nesciebatis Odiebam Laetare Romanis
For example, given the third mood of the second figure (Festino) to reduce
per impossible ; it would have to be reduced to the perfect mood whose conclu¬
sion is E (third vowel of the symbol obit terras), that is to Celarent.
Fes No saint is arrogant,
ti but some reformer is arrogant,
no therefore some reformer is not a saint.
Supposing that we admit the premisses but deny the Conclusion ; by replacing
the Minor by the contradictory of the Conclusion we have :
Ce No saint is arrogant,
la but every reformer is a saint
rent therefore no reformer is arrogant,
which contradicts the Minor, “ some reformer is arrogant,” which had been
admitted by hypothesis.
 REASONING 205

This conclusion is the contradictory of the Minor of the syllo¬

gism in Baroco, which our adversary had admitted by hypo¬
thesis. Thus the adversary’s position is reduced to the absurd,
for in granting the premisses of this syllogism, and denying
its Conclusion, he contradicted himself.
*80. THE COMPARATIVE VALUE OF THE THREE SYLLOGISTIC
figures. The first figure contains the perfect moods of the
syllogism, and consequently it deserves to come first. The
ancients granted second place to the second figure and
last place to the third, because in the second figure the M
is twice Pr., and in the third it is twice S. and it is “ nobler ”
to be Pr. than to be S., for the S. has the role of matter and
the Pr. the role of form in the proposition.1
Although the first figure is the most perfect, the second
and third have their advantage according to circumstances :
the second, whose conclusion is always negative, in the
refutation of an adversary ; the third in showing that a
thesis could not be universally true because an example of
the contrary may be encountered.

(a) The theory of the figures and moods of the syllo¬

gism is set forth in detail in the Prior Analytics. Moreover,
Aristotle states 2 that no one had ever studied the question
before him. Here we have the extremely rare case of a
scientific doctrine being constituted in all its perfection
by its discoverer. For since Aristotle, whatever additions
Logic may have received from other sources, especially
from the Stoics and the scholastics, and whatever variety
of aspects may have been brought out by certain modern
philosophers, especially in the nineteenth century, no
one has ever been able to improve upon the theory itself
of the categorical syllogism, and every effort to reform it has
been unsuccessful (see below, Nos. 82, 83, 84).
(b) exercise. (1) State the conclusion of the following
syllogisms, and indicate their figure and mood :
No wise man is garrulous, but some old men are gar¬
rulous, therefore—

1 Cf. the tracts attributed to St. Thomas, De Natura Syllogismorum and Summa
totius Logicae (X, 4) (opusc. 47 and 48, rom. edit). Although apocryphal their
doctrine is excellent.
* De. Soph, elench., Chap. XXXIV, 184 b 1.
 206 LOGIC

Everything that is poisonous is harmful to man, but

certain fruits are poisonous, therefore—
No mammal is a bird, but some mammal is a flying
animal, therefore—
Everything that is beautiful is rare, but virtue is beauti¬
ful, therefore—
Some fish has wings, but every fish has scales,
therefore—
No mammal is oviparous, but the bat is a mammal,
therefore—
Every mammal is viviparous, but every mammal is a
warm-blooded animal, therefore—
No lie is praiseworthy, but some praise is a lie,
therefore—
Every ambitious man is uneasy, but no wise man is
uneasy, therefore—
(2) From among these syllogisms, reduce those that
are in imperfect moods to perfect moods.
(3) Find examples of each of the syllogistic moods.

3. Explanations and Discussions of the Syllogism 1

In a *81. the true notion of the syllogism. Having studied
perfect
syllogism the moods and figures of the syllogism, and familiarized
the major
is always ourselves with its logical mechanism, we are better able to
more
universal
than the
understand what constitutes its essence and its force. The
conclusion
from the
syllogism consists essentially in identifying two terms with a
point of
view of
middle term, and in inferring from this the identity of these
logical
relations,
two terms with each other.2 It does not consist essentially in
and very
often so
descending from a more universal term to a less universal term
from the contained under it. All the treatises on Logic undoubtedly
point of
view of the
content of
teach that in the syllogism the mind concludes from a more universal
the
propositions.
truth to a less universal truth contained in the frst, and this is
true, at least as to logical relations, or as to the logical func¬
But that
which
tions of the S. and Pr. in the proposition. But the essential
essentially force and merit of the syllogism lies, not in the passage
constitutes

1 The criticisms of the syllogism from the point of view of its demonstrative
value (Sextus Empiricus, Descartes, Stuart Mill, Goblot—) will be studied in
Major Logic. We are interested here only in that which pertains to the
syllogism as it enters into Minor or Formal Logic.
2 See above, Nos. 66, 69, 71.
 REASONING 207

from the universal to the particular, but in the identification the syl¬
logism is
of the two extremes with a same third term. When we said above 1 not the
passage
that the principle of the syllogism resides in the universal from the
universal
it was only to stress the fact that this third term must neces¬ to the
particular
sarily be universal if an inference is to be drawn by means but the
identifica¬
of such an identification. tion of two
terms by
(1) The passage of the mind in the syllogism from a more means of a
same third
universal truth to a less universal truth is not the essence of term.

the syllogism, but merely a property that springs from this

essence. Nevertheless, it is very important that this property
be correctly understood—property which the earlier logi¬
cians did not emphasize as much as do the moderns, but
which they understood formally and as logicians. Since the
decadence of Scholasticism in the fifteenth and sixteenth
century, however, this property has been understood
in a material way which has completely falsified its meaning.
The addition of this misinterpretation to the ever-increasing
tendency to reduce all reasoning to the mere establishment
of the relations of extension,2 has resulted in the serious
distortion of Logic in modern times. It is therefore advisable
to emphasize this point in order that any ambiguity may be
avoided.
To say that the syllogism goes from the more universal
to the less universal, or from the universal to the particular,
is true only from the point of view of logical relations, or, in
other words, it is true only in regard to the logical structure
of propositions, considering things from the point of view
of the being of reason (in the order of concepts) which con¬
stitutes the proper object of the logician.
For in a syllogism of the first figure the M is Pr. in the
Minor, and we know that, from the point of view of logical
relations, considering only the logical function of the Pr. in reference
to the S.,z the Pr. has a greater extension than the S. There¬
fore in the Minor t<M, that is, functionally as Pr. of the
Minor, M contains t in its extension. Furthermore, since
M in the Minor is communicated to t as the subject of the
1 See above. No. 71.
2 Thus for Hamilton the syllogism consists in “ inferring that the part of
a part is the part of a whole.” J. S. Mill, Hamilton’s Philosophy, Vol. II, p. 196,
Spencer, 1866.
3 See above, No. 52.
208 LOGIC

Major, from the point of view of logical relations, or of the

form of the syllogism, M must also contain t in its extension
in the Major. Consequently, from the point of view of
logical relations, the Conclusion “ t is T ” is a less universal
proposition than the Major “ M is T.”
Moreover, all the moods of the second and third figure,
and also those of the indirect first, may be reduced to the
moods of the first figure.
Therefore, in so far as logical relations taken in them¬
selves are concerned and in the measure in which every
syllogism is reducible to a syllogism of the first figure, it is
indeed true that the mind in the syllogism concludes from
a more universal truth to a less universal truth contained
in the first.
But does this mean that the essential force of the syllogism
consists in this property ?—Not at all. This property does
nothing but make manifest to us a sine qua non condition for
the validity of the syllogism. If we were not sure of the
legitimacy of the identification of the two extremes in virtue
of their mutual identification with the middle term, that
is, if the logical functions of the Pr. and S. in the proposi¬
tions did not guarantee that the middle term, in being
identified with T, is no smaller than it is when identified
with t, the syllogism would not be absolutely foolproof,
and might sometimes lead us into error.
This guarantee of legitimate identification is the only
thing manifested by the property in question.
(2) The proof of this lies in the fact that, considering
the contents of the proposition and not its logical structure,
there are many instances in which the Conclusion is just
as universal as the Major :

Every rational being is made to live in society,

but every man is a rational being,
therefore every man is made to live in society.

Or again :

If a parallelogram is divided into two isosceles

triangles by its diagonals, these diagonals are per¬
pendicular to each other,
 REASONING 20g

but a rhombus is a parallelogram divided into two

isosceles triangles by its diagonals,
therefore the diagonals of a rhombus are perpendicular
to each other.

All the propositions in these syllogisms are convertible,

and the Conclusion has the same universality as the Major.
Only from the pure point of view of the logical relations,
considering the logical functions of t and M (t, the subject
of the conclusion, stands to M in the minor as S., as a term
of less extension, and M is subject in the Major) is there
any passage here from a more universal to a less universal
truth. Nevertheless, these are valid syllogisms in Barbara ;
moreover, as we shall see in Major Logic, Aristotle and the
Scholastics considered such examples as the perfect type of
the syllogism from the point of view of demonstration.1
Furthermore, it is evident that in a syllogism in Darii,
such as :
Every man has the power of thought,
but some corporeal creature is a man,
therefore some corporeal creature has the power of thought,

or again in a syllogism of the third figure in Darapti or

Disamis :
Every man is mortal,
but every man is a thinking being,
therefore some thinking being is a mortal,
Some thinking being is mortal,
but every thinking being wants to live for ever,
therefore some being who wants to live for ever is mortal,

the Conclusion, from the point of view of the content of

the propositions, is not less universal than the Major.
Consequently if, instead of considering propositions from
the formal point of view of logical relations, we consider
them materially from the point of view of their contents
(which is not the point of view proper to Minor Logic),
we cannot say that the Major, of itself, contains the Con-

1 If Minor Logic has recourse to examples such as “ Every man is mortal,

but Peter is a man, etc.,” it is only in order to make sensibly manifest, in the
very matter of the propositions, the logical relations existing between terms.
210 LOGIC

elusion as a more universal proposition contains a less

universal proposition. We may only say that the Major
contains this Conclusion as a cause, reason, or principle,
contains its effect virtually ; from this point of view the
Major appears, not as a proposition that is necessarily and
always more universal, but indeed as a proposition that is
necessarily and always of greater range.
(3) Therefore when it happens, as it very frequently
does, that the Major is actually more universal than the
Conclusion from the point of view of material contents,
e.g., “ All that subsists immaterially is indestructible, but
the human soul subsists immaterially, therefore the human
soul is indestructible,” we do not draw our Conclusion
because “ human soul ” is a subjective part of “ that subsists
immaterially,” but because “ that subsists immaterially ”
is a middle term which serves to unite the term “ human soul ”
to another term. In saying : “ Every man is mortal, but
Peter is a man, therefore, etc.,” we do not draw our Con¬
clusion because “ Peter ” is a subjective part of “ man,”
but because “ man ” is a middle term by means of which the
term Peter and the term mortal are identified. The argumen¬
tation in question is a syllogism not because it proceeds from
a universal term to one of its subjective parts (see below
No. 96, 3), but because it proceeds in virtue of the connection
between terms or concepts, or more definitively, because it
proceeds entirely upon the intelligible plane, upon the
plane of concepts and self-evident principles.
The true, the essential characteristic of the syllogism is
that it proceeds from one universal to another universal (be it
equally or less extended than the first). In any event the
axiom that the syllogism proceeds from the more universal to the
less universal is true only from the formal point of view of the
logical relations existing between terms and concepts.
(4) Many more or less nominalistic authors, who con¬
found the extension of a concept with its resolution into a simple
collection of individuals, that is, with its pure and simple
destruction,1 and consequently entirely misunderstand the
meaning of the axiom “ the syllogism proceeds from the
universal to the particular,” interpret the syllogism from a
1 Sec above, No. 12 d.
 REASONING 21 I

purely collective point of view. In other words, they think it

consists merely in passing on to one or several individuals a
predicate that has been proven true of all the members of the
collection in which these individuals are a part. This is a
basic error and deals a veritable death-blow to all Logic ;
it is not at all surprising that these authors, beginning by
gratuitously forming so crude a conception of the syllogism,
should consider it useless tautology, or a vicious circle.1
Indeed there are exceptional cases in which, by reason
of its matter, a universal proposition signifies absolutely
nothing except a fact common to all the individuals in a
collection taken as such, and tells us nothing of the require¬
ments of a universal nature or reason—e.g., “ All the inhabit¬
ants of this town perished in the tidal wave,” but in this
event it is evident that such a proposition can be true only
if the truth of each particular instance has been verified ;
the truth of the conclusion “ therefore this or that particular
inhabitant of this town perished in the tidal wave ” had to
be known before the major could be held as true ; hence
the reasoning in question goes around in a circle. But,
precisely in such cases there is neither reasoning nor inference,
and no true logician has ever regarded them as valid
examples of the syllogism.
We have recourse to the exterior form of the syllogism in
such instances, only that we may proceed to some sort of
verification or sensible identification of a fact recorded in a proposi¬
tion which presupposes it as known, but which we know
only because we remember it or are told by someone else.
For example : upon hearing a news-flash to the effect that
“ none of the passengers on train 22 were injured in yester¬
day’s accident,” we could exclaim : “ therefore our friend
X, who was travelling on that train was not killed.” Or,
in recalling that “ all Verlaine’s works were published by
Vanier,” we could say : “ therefore Sagesse was published
by Vanier.” But the fact remains that in such examples
(even in expository syllogisms, see below, No. 85) we make
no real inference, we do not really reason at all. It is not

1 Cf. Sextus Empiricus, Hypotyp. Pyrrh., Bk. II, Chap. XIV, §196 ; Stuart
Mill, System of Logic, Bk. II, Chap. Ill, §2.—A more detailed examination of
these criticisms of the syllogism will be given in Major Logic.
212 LOGIC

a little remarkable that these exceptional cases wherein

there is no reasoning, and which offer us but a sterile verbal
form, an appearance, a mere corpse of a syllogism, should
be regarded by certain logicians as the “ only true
categorical syllogisms of the first figure,” 1 syllogisms
which we will very willingly agree are unquestionably
“ tautological.”
In reality, the syllogistic inference owes its entire value
and its very existence not to a collection of individuals, but
to the universal nature which is communicable to these indivi¬
duals and taken as the syllogism’s middle term. It is not
from the point of view of a simple collection of individuals,
but from the point of view of the universal essence that we
must look upon the syllogism if we wish to understand it,
for the syllogism consists in passing on to an (individual or
universal) subject, a predicate that we know to be true of
the universal nature to whose laws this subject submits.
This is a legitimate operation and furthers knowledge ;
for to know that “ every triangle has the sum of its angles
equal to two right angles ” is not the same as to know that
“ the sum of the angles of the figure inscribed in a semi¬
circle is equal to two right angles.” It is no more neces¬
sary to know the second truth in order to establish the first,
than it is to know that Peter is mortal in order to know that
every man, being corporeal, is mortal.
So we may say that in the syllogism we do not proceed
from all to several but from all to every or to some. In order
to avoid ambiguity, therefore, the logician must formulate
his examples of the syllogism by saying “ Every man is mortal,”
“ Some man is sincere ” and not : “ All men are mortal,”
“ Some men are sincere.” The latter expressions signify the
individuals in a group before signifying the universal nature
of which they partake ; nevertheless (aside from exceptional
cases such as those mentioned above) they do signify this
universal nature itself, though only secondarily.2 Everyday
language risks the creation of a good deal of confusion by
the careless substitution of “ all men ” for “ every man.”
But it would hardly be edifying for a logician, a specialist

1 E. Goblot, Logique, p. 222.

* See above, No. 51 c.
 REASONING 213

in the technique of reasoning, to be taken in by the inexacti¬

tudes of common speech.
*82. on the reduction of moods. The reduction of
moods as treated in Scholastic Logic has been criticized
on the pretext that it makes use of the conversion of proposi¬
tions, and that conversion itself is, in reality, a syllogism
of the second or third figure (see above, No. 68 b) whence
it follows that this reduction of imperfect syllogisms to
perfect syllogisms is merely circular reasoning.
This criticism is absolutely inoperative, for, as we have
seen, conversion constitutes neither an immediate inference
nor a syllogism ; it is simply the immediate passage, without
inference or reasoning of any kind, from a truth expressed
in one way to the same truth expressed in another way.
*83. THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE PREDICATE. The English
philosopher, Hamilton, last great representative of the
Scottish School, thought he could completely revolutionize
the theory of the proposition and the syllogism, and carry
it to unsuspected peaks of perfection by means of his doctrine
of the quantification of the predicate.—In what does this doctrine
consist ?
1. Hamilton starts from the principle that Logic should
“ state explicitly what is thought implicitly,” that is, that
it should replace the expressions of ordinary speech by
expressions in which everything implicitly contained in
thought should be explicitly signified.
2. As a consequence he declares that the Pr. in every Hamilton
demands
proposition must be modified by a sign expressly manifesting that in
every pro¬
its quantity. position, the
quantity of
3. But in reality his proposed reform goes much further. the Pr. be
indicated
He considers every proposition as an equation between two by a sign.

concepts of a certain determinate extension, let us say

between two logical quantities. (According to him to say
“ Every man is mortal ” is to think : “the whole expanse
of man = a certain definite portion of the expanse of
mortal.”) Hence he distinguishes as many propositions as
there can be possible combinations a priori between one
(universal or particular) logical quantity and another.
4. Which is to say that, instead of the four kinds of proposi¬
tions (A, E, I, O) treated in the theory of the proposi-
214 LOGIC

tion (opposition and conversion) and the syllogism, Mr.

Hamilton distinguishes eight kinds of propositions—four
affirmative (a—a a—i, i—a, i—i) and four negative (e e,
e—o, o—e, o—o) :

(1) toto-total (a—aj : “ All man is all

rationality.”
(2) toto-partial (a—i) : “ All man is some
animal.”
Affirmatives
(3) parti-total (i—a) : “ Some animal (viz.,
man) is all rationality.”
(4) parti-partial (i—i) : “ Some animal (viz.,
man) is some thinking being.”

'(5) toto-total (e—e) : “ No man is no

angel.” 1
(6) toto-partial (e—o) : “ No man is some
animal” (viz., irrational animal).
Negatives < (7) parti-total (o—e) : “ Some animal (viz.,
man) is no angel.”
(8) parti-partial (o—O) : “ Some animal
(viz., man) is not some thinking being
(viz., angel).”

According to Hamilton classical Logic is at fault because

it has not recognized propositions of the a—a, i—a type,
for it has not seen that there are affirmative propositions in
which the Pr. is taken universally (the convertible proposi¬
tions “ all man is rational,” “ some animal (namely, man)
is rational ”), and because it has not recognized proposi¬
tions of the e—o, o—o type : “ men are not some mammals,”
“ some animals (men) are not some mammals.” In his
eyes his reform has a number of important advantages of
which he enumerates eighteen in particular,—the reduction
of the conversion of propositions from three species to one :
simple conversion (the simple transposition of the two
extremes without changing their quantity : x =y, there¬
fore y — x ; every man = some animal, therefore some
animal = every man) ; “ the reduction of all the general

1 Or according to the more correct formulation of the ancients : was ivOpairos

oiStU \i6os, omnis homo nullus lapis est.
 REASONING 215
rules of categorical syllogisms to a single canqn ” and
“ the abrogation of all the special laws of the syllogism.” In
fact in this doctrine the syllogism, which from now on admits
of thirty-six legitimate moods, consists solely,—given that
J> — Z {Major),—in substituting z for its equivalent, y, in the

proposition x — y {Minor), with the result x = z {Conclusion) ;

in other words, the syllogism rests solely upon the principle
of the substitution of similars (Stanley Jevons). From this it
follows that “ the figure is a non-essential variation in the
syllogistic form, and in consequence it is absurd to reduce
the syllogisms of other figures to the first.”
Criticism.—Stuart Mill has shown at some length the
vanity of the claim that progress has been made in formal
logic owing to the theory of the quantification of the Predi¬
cate ; but this theory had already been summarily criti¬
cized by St. Thomas Aquinas in his commentary on the
Perihermeneias (fib. 1, Cap. VII, lect. 10, Nos. 23 and 24).
This important text, the inspiration of the following remarks,
is given in a note.1

1 “ Deinde cum dicit : in eo vero quod, etc., removet quoddam quod posset
esse dubium. Quia enim posuerat quamdam diversitatem in oppositione
enunciationum ex hoc quod universale sumitur a parte subjecti universaliter
vel non universaliter, posset aliquis credere quod similis diversitas nasceretur
ex parte praedicati, ex hoc scilicet quod universale praedicari posset et uni¬
versaliter et non universaliter ; et ideo ad hoc excludendum dicit quod in eo
quod praedicatur aliquod universale, non est verum quod praedicetur univer¬
sale universaliter. Cujus quidem duplex esse potest ratio.
“ Una quidem, quia tabs modus praedicandi videtur repugnare praedicato
secundum propriam rationem quam habet in enunciatione. Dictum est enim
supra quod praedicatum est quasi pars formalis enunciationis, subjectum autem
est pars materialis ipsius : cum autem aliquod universale profertur universaliter,
ipsum universale sumitur secundum habitudinem quam habet ad singularia,
quae sub se continet ; sicut et quando universale profertur particulariter,
sumitur secundum habitudinem quam habet ad aliquod contentorum sub se ;
et sic utrumque pertinet ad materialem determinationem universalis; et ideo
neque signum universale neque particulare convenienter additur praedicato,
sed magis subjecto : convenientius enim dicitur, nullus homo est asinus, quam
omnis homo est nullus asinus ; et similiter convenientius dicitur, aliquis homo est
alhus, quam homo est aliquid album.
“ Invenitur autem quandoque a philosophis signum particulare appositum
praedicato, ad insinuandum quod praedicatum est in plus quam subjectum,
et hoc praecipue cum, habito genere, investigant differentias completivas
speciei, sicut in II de Anima dicitur quod anima est actus quidam.
“ Alia vero ratio potest accipi ex parte veritatis enunciationis ; et ista
specialiter habet locum in affirmationibus, quae falsae essent si praedicatum
universaliter praedicaretur. Et ideo manifestans id quod posuerat, subjungit
quod Nulla affirmatio est in qua, scilicet vere, de universali praedicato universaliter
praedicetur, id est in qua universali praedicato utitur ad universaliter prae-
dicandum ; ut si diceretur, omnis homo est omne animal. Oportet enim, secundum
2l6 LOGIC

i. Let us examine the eight varieties of proposition

recognized by Hamilton. We shall find (a) that those only are
legitimate which correspond to the four types of classical
Logic (A, E, I, O), and (b) that even in these propositions
there is no question of quantifying the Predicate.
{a) Toto-total and parti-total affirmatives (a—a, i—a). “ All
man is all rational being,” “ some animal {i.e., man) is all
rational being.”
These propositions are absolutely illegitimate, for the very
good reason that an affirmative proposition in which the

praedicta, quod hoc praedicatum animal secundum singula quae sub ipso
continentur, praedicaretur de singulis quae continentur sub homine ; et hoc
non potest esse verum, neque si praedicatum sit in plus quam subjectum, neque
si praedicatum sit convertibile cum eo. Oporteret enim quod quilibet unus
homo esset animalia omnia, aut omnia risibilia : quae repugnant rationi
singularis, quod accipitur sub universali. . . .
“ Signum autem universale negativum, vel particulare affirmativum, etsi
convenientius ponantur ex parte subjecti, non tamen repugnat veritati etiam
si ponatur ex parte praedicati. Contingit enim hujusmodi enunciationes in
aliqua materia esse veras : haec enim est vera, omnis homo nullus lapis est; et
similiter haec est vera omnis homo aliquod animal est. Sed haec, omnis homo omne
animal est, in quacumque materia proferatur, falsa est. Sunt autem quaedam
aliae tales enunciationes semper falsae ; sicuti ista, aliquis homo omne animal est
(quae habet eamdem causam falsitatis cum hac, omnis homo omne animal est) ;
et si quae aliae similes, sunt semper falsae : in omnibus enim eadem ratio est.
Et ideo per hoc quod Philosophus reprobavit istam, omnis homo omne animal est,
dedit intelligere omnes consimiles esse improbandas.”
(St. Thomas in Perihermeneias, lib. I, Chap. VII, lect. io, Nos. 23 and 24.)
In the text upon which St. Thomas is commenting here (Perihermeneias, 17 b 12,
16) Aristotle has clearly foreseen the theory of the quantification of the predi¬
cate. This is also the text upon which the most important observations con¬
cerning this theory were made by the ancients, by Ammonius in particular
and, among the Latins, by Boethius (Commentarii in librum Aristotelis Periherm.,
p. 439 ; ed. Meiser, Teubner. Secunda editio II, Chap. VII, pp. 162-163),
and by Albertus Magnus (lib. I, Periherm., tract. V ; Vives, t. I, p. 413).
But the most complete and profound treatment of this question has been given
by St. Thomas.
It is peculiar that none of the modem critics of Hamilton’s theory should
have perceived that this question had been definitely settled over six hundred
years ago. Hamilton himself, a man of great learning, quotes Aristotle,
Alexander, Ammonius, Boethius, Averroes, Albert the Great, Levi Ben Gerson,
the masters of Louvain, etc., but ignores St. Thomas’ text.
We may further point out the thesis upheld here by St. Thomas should be
considered as classic in the School. Apparently the Terminists were the first
to attempt to shake it. Cf. Occam, Summa totius Logicae, Chap. IV, f. 26,
v. A : “ Secundo sciendum, quod omnis propositio universalis, in qua prae¬
dicatum sumitur universaliter, est falsa, si praedicatum et subjectum verifi-
centur de pluribus contentis ; si autem praedicatur praecise de uno solo
contento et similiter subjectum, tunc posset esse propositio vera, sicut si non
esset nisi unum animal, puta unus homo, haec esset vera omnis homo est omne
animal ” (quoted by Prantl, II, p. 583, note 908). Occam’s thesis here conforms
with his general doctrine on universal propositions, which, in his eyes, always
have an existential meaning, even in necessary matter.
 REASONING 217

Pr. is universally attributed to the S. is under every circum¬

stance false. Had Hamilton understood the nature of the
proposition and of attribution (praedicatio), he would have
seen that in every universal or particular affirmative the
Pr., being attributed to a universal subject (taken uni¬
versally ; “all man ” or particularly, “ some animal ”)
is by that very fact declared to be communicable to the
individuals contained under this universal subject. He would
also have immediately perceived that if the Pr. is taken
universally, as it is in the propositions in question, it is taken
as communicable to the S. (and therefore to the individuals
for which the S. stands) according to all the singulars contained
under it, secundum singula quae suo ipso praedicato contineniur.
Thus the proposition “ all man is all rational being ”
necessarily infers that “ Peter is all rational ” and that
“ Peter is all rational beings,” which is absurd.
Thus the complaint that Hamilton brings against clas¬
sical Logic concerning convertible propositions turns back
upon him. The logicians of antiquity were well aware
that the extension of the Pr. in convertible propositions
(“ Every man is rational ”) coincides with that of the S.
{praedicatum non est in plus), but they were also aware that
it is only by reason of the matter of the proposition that
this is so.1 And they were especially careful to add that,
even in this case, the Pr. (“ rational ”) always continues to
be taken particularly, that is, it continues to have a particular
suppositio [suppositio confusa tantum, seu disjuncta), and to stand

1 See above, n. 52, § 2.—For this reason, as de Morgan and Mill have
remarked, it is not sufficient to consult the proposition “ every man is a rational
animal ” in order to know that the Pr. rational belongs exclusively to the S.
Man, for of itself this proposition does not tell us this. To know this fact we
must either add another proposition to the first, viz., “ every rational animal is
a man,” or we must have recourse to the occultly compound proposition : “ man
alone is a rational animal,” which really combines the import of two different
propositions (see above, n. 45).
Hamilton’s error, so vigorously denounced by John Stuart Mill, consists
in attempting to make one and the same proposition affirm two different things
{An Exam, of Hamilton's Philosophy, Vol. II, p. 209 (Spencer, 1866) ). On this
point Mill quotes (after Grote) a passage from Levi Ben Gerson, a Jewish
philosopher of the fourteenth century : “ We do not ordinarily add a quantita¬
tive sign to the predicate, for were we to do so we would state two quaesita at
the same time : namely—that the predicate is affirmed of the subject, and
that it is denied of everything else ” (J. S. Mill, An Exam, of Hamilton’s Philos.,
p. 489 (French translation, Cazelles, Paris, 1869) ). [I have been unable to
find the English edition from which this translation was made. Tr.J
2l8 LOGIC

in the proposition for an individuum vagum in which the

universal concept “ rational ” is realized.1
Toto-partial and parti-partial negative propositions (e—o, o—o).
“ No man is some mammal (viz., irrational), “ Some animal
(viz., man) is not some mammal.” 2 As we have just
seen, toto-total (and parti-total) affirmatives are artificial
and necessarily false formulations (“ all man is all rational
(being) ”) of true propositions that are used in ordinary
language (convertible propositions : “ all man is rational ”).
Toto-partial and parti-partial negative propositions are
entirely artificial and exist only because of the exigencies
of Hamilton’s classification. They, too, are illegitimate and
inadmissible for, being essentially amphibological, they are
both true and false at the same time, which is repugnant to the
very nature of the proposition. For example, given the
expression “ No man is some mammal ” ; in so far as
“ some mammal ” signifies “ irrational mammal ” in this
proposition this expression is true. But a proposition is
false if its contradictory is true ; the contradictory proposi¬
tion “ some man is some mammal ” (viz., rational mammal)
is true ; therefore from this aspect “ no man is some
mammal ” is false. This expression is essentially amphi¬
bological from the fact that it declares what a thing is not
precisely by the aid of what it is.
In reality, the addition of the particle some to the Pr. of a
negative proposition—if we understand this addition as

1 As soon as we begin to lose hold of the true notion of the suppositio of terms,
and consider only Euler’s schemas, and the circles that represent the extension
of concepts, we also begin to lose sight of the true nature of the proposition.
We should note that the expression “ to be taken in all its extension ” or “ in
a part of its extension,” which replaces the expression “ to be taken universally
or particularly ” is equivocal, and may lead us into Hamilton’s error. In a
convertible proposition the extension of the Pr. is not restricted in the sense
that the Pr. concept has the same extension as the S. concept and that the
extension of the Pr. coincides entirely, and not only in part, with that of the
S. (praedicatum non est in plus). But the extension of the Pr. is restricted in
this sense, that the Pr. has a particular suppositio—or, in other words, that it is
not taken in all its universality to be attributed to the S. (non praedicatur
universaliter).
2 In the text cited above, St. Thomas does not speak of toto-partial and
parti-partial negatives. Our criticism of these propositions is drawn from other
sources, especially from remarks made by the ancient logicians on the nature
of the categorical proposition, which necessarily admits of but one affirmation
or of one true or false negation.
 REASONING 219
Hamilton does,1 does not give a particular suppositio to the
Pr. taken as such. It merely carves out of the latter’s
extension a more restricted concept that continues to be
universally separated from the subject, or, in other words, a
concept that continues to be taken according to all its uni¬
versality to be denied of the subject (and therefore according
to all the singulars contained under it). Thus the expression,
no man is some mammal ” is but a defective formulation
of a proposition such as “ No man is an irrational mammal ”
or “ man is not a mammal of any kind,” propositions in This inno¬
vation is
which the Pr. is not simply determined in relation to the illegitimate
for four
singulars it contains under it by a quantitative sign, but types of
proposition.
is, on the contrary, intrinsically modified by a connotative
term which excludes from it the specific difference proper
to the subject. The Pr. of these propositions is taken uni¬
versally, following the usual rule of negative propositions,
and their contradictory : “ Some man is an irrational
animal,” “ Man is any kind of mammal ” is false.
Therefore the four types of proposition (a—a, i—a,
e—o, o—o) which Hamilton thought to add to those
already recognized by Aristotelian Logic, represent an
absolutely illegitimate innovation.
(b) Toto-partial and parti-partial Affirmatives, toto-total and
parti-total Negatives. There remain to be considered the four
classic types of proposition (A, E, I, O), which become a—i, useless and
awkward
i—i, e—e, o—e propositions in Hamilton’s classification. for the
other four.
In their case it is not illegitimate to express the quantity of
the Pr. by a sign, but it is absolutely useless to do so, since it

1 This addition may be understood in another manner—the only one in

which the expression “ no man is some mammal ” is not amphibological
and may be held as a true proposition. But in this case this proposition is
false. For to say that “ no man is some mammal ” is in this sense equivalent
to saying that no identity ever exists between a man and a mammiferous
individuum vagum, or to denying the affirmative proposition that posits this
identity (some man is (some) mammal). In this sense the proposition “ no
man is some mammal ” is far from being toto-partial, for its Pr. is taken
universally (that is, it is so denied of the S. that none of the singulars contained
under it could be attributed to the S.) and it purely and simply signifies that
“ No man is a mammal.” Similarly to say “ no man is some angel ” is the same
as saying “ no man is an angel.”
Hence it follows that, considered as real propositions (and not as amphibo¬
logical), Hamilton’s toto-partial negatives are always false, for from this
aspect they really signify that no A is B, whereas Hamilton always so constructs
his propositions and so chooses his terms A and B, that A is some B.
220 LOGIC

is of the very nature of the affirmative proposition that its

Pr. always be taken particularly, and of the very nature of
the negative proposition that its Pr. always be taken uni¬
versally. Furthermore, although this quantification is not
incompatible with the truth of the enunciation, as it is in
the preceding cases, yet, as St. Thomas has profoundly
remarked, it is incompatible with the proper function of
the Pr. in the enunciation (videtur repugnare praedicato secun¬
dum propriam rationem quam habet in enunciatione). Consequently
it constitutes not only a superfluous but an awkward
innovation (non convenienter dicitur). For the Pr. is as the
formal part, and the S. as the material part of the enuncia¬
tion. Now when a universal is quantified (that is, when we
show by a sign that it is taken universally or particularly),
it is explicitly considered according to its relation to the
singulars which it contains under it. But this relates to
the material determination of the universal; consequently it is
proper to quantify the S., which has the function of the
material part, but not the Pr., which has the function of
the formal part in the proposition.
2. The errors pointed out above spring from a funda¬
mental error, due to which Hamilton completely mis¬
understands the nature of the proposition.
Considering the signs more than the objects of thought,
he substitutes for the identification of a S. and Pr. by means
of the copula is—which identification is of the very essence
of the proposition and the judgment (“ man is mortal ”)—
an entirely different relation. This relation, belonging to
the mathematical and not to the logical order, is simply
that of an expressed equality between an extension A (the
concept “ man ”) and an extension B (the concept “ some
mortal ”).
Thus the proposition “ Man is mortal ” is reduced to the
expression, “ Man = some mortal,” which is no longer a
logical enunciation and no longer functions as a proposition
to be thought, but rather as an algorism to be used without
thinking.
Hamilton is thus led to regard the proposition “ all A
is B ” as signifying that “ all the genus A ” (later on it will
be called the “ class ” A) “ is all the genus B ” or “ a part
 REASONING 221

of the genus B ” ; or that “ all the genus man is all the

genus rational,” or “ all the genus ox is a part of the genus
ruminant.” But this is absurd, for what ruminates is not
the genus ox, which has only logical being, but the ox con¬
cretely realized in this or that individual. As a matter of
fact Hamilton confuses the universal terms which are the
S. and Pr. of the proposition, with collective wholes, and
Stuart Mill (who for his own part reduces the universal to
a collection of individuals taken one by one) is justified in
telling him that “ to affirm that, when we judge every A
to be a B, we always, and necessarily, recognize in thought
a fact which is not true of every, or even of any A, but only
of the aggregate composed of all A’s, seems to me as baseless
a fancy as ever implanted itself in the intellect of an eminent
thinker.” 1
3. This false notion of the proposition, naturally entails
a false notion of the syllogism (which will henceforth
consist, not in thinking according to a certain linking together
of concepts, but in performing certain operations upon signs, as
in algebra). It is also accompanied by a false notion of
logic itself. Undoubtedly, in reflecting as a technician, the
logician should take into explicit account that which is
implied in the play of thought,2 but he cannot—as Hamilton
would have him do—transform the natural play of thought
into an artificial system in which everything should be
explicit, and which would usurp the function of thought
itself. The logical art, ars cooperativa naturae, must direct
this play of thought and verify its laws, but it cannot take
its place.
4. We have dealt at length with the theory of the quan¬
tification of the predicate because it presents in their
embryonic stage and as yet in continuity with Logic,
certain notions which claim to perfect Logic but in reality

1 John Stuart Mill, An Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy,

Vol. II, Chap. XXII, p. 205 (Spencer, 1866).
a Hamilton’s expression “ what is thought implicitly ” is equivocal. When
I think a proposition, even “ in extension,” for example, “ the ox is a ruminant,
this plant is not a dicotyledon,” the suppositio of the Pr. (particular in the first
case, universal in the second) is indeed a logical property of my thought. But
this property—the object of the logician’s reflection—is not contained in my
thought as something which I would think, as something which would be the
object of my thought, even implicitly.
 222 LOGIC

lead it astray. The systematic development of these con¬

ceptions in another field has erected in the face of Logic a-
totally different discipline, namely Logistics.1
It was also necessary to show here how very far was the
Logic of the Schools from paving the way for the theory of
the quantification of the predicate, as some ill-informed
thinkers would have us believe. Classical Logic, while
taking into account the quantity of the Pr. conformably to
the nature of things, is, on the contrary, radically opposed
to Hamilton’s doctrine, not only as it concerns the quanti¬
fication of the Pr., but also in its notion of the proposition,
of the syllogism and of Logic itself.
*84. THE LOGISTICIANS, OPPONENTS OF THE THEORY OF
THE SYLLOGISM, OF SUBALTERNATION AND OF PARTIAL CON¬
VERSION. In Major Logic we shall examine several problems
concerning Logistics, a system of ideographical calculus
apparently originated by Leibnitz, which made great
strides during the nineteenth century, thanks to the mathe-
matico-logical labours of several Italian and English authors
(de Morgan, 1806-1871 ; Boole, 1815-1864 ; Schroeder,
1841-1902 ; MacColl, Peirce, Macfarlane, Peano, Russell,
Padoa).
Logistics is We shall see that Logistics differs essentially from Logic.
an art con¬
cerned not For, whereas the latter bears upon the act of reason itself
with
thought in its progress towards the true, and thus upon the order of
but with the
signs of concepts themselves and of thought, Logistics is concerned
thought,
and which with the relations between ideographic signs and therefore
proposes to
dispense with these signs themselves which, once determined, are
with
thought. taken as sufficient.
Consequently Logistics proposes to dispense with thinking,
to do away with rational and properly logical operations
such as distinction, argumentation, etc., and to suppress
every difficulty in reasoning by means of an excessively
complicated algebra which the intelligence need only
apply. Logic, on the contrary, proposes to teach us to think, to
teach us to effectuate correctly the rational and properly
logical operations such as distinction, argumentation, etc.,
and to surmount the numerous difficulties of reasoning by
means of an art (an intellectual virtue) which should
1 See Major Logic.
 REASONING 223
intrinsically perfect the very life of the intelligence and
co-operate with its natural activity.
In any event, aside from the question of whether or not
the former is a legitimate and viable method, Logistics
and Logic remain separate disciplines, entirely foreign to
one another. Correctly understood they cannot contradict
each other, since in reality they do not have the same object.
The Logisticians, however, do not always view the situa¬
tion so soberly and have formulated high-flown criticisms
of some theories of “ classical Logic ” concerning which it
would not be amiss to speak here.
I. The Syllogism in General. Padoa,1 for example, says
that if we translate the nineteen legitimate moods recognized
by classical Logic into logistic formulas, we perceive that,

1 Alessandro Padoa, La Logique diductive dans sa derniere phase de diveloppement,

Paris, Gauthier-Villars, 1912, p. 78. For example, a syllogism in Datisi would
be represented by the formula
b 3 ^ a (A—a) : 3 ; a (a—c)
which means : If b is contained in c, and if there exists a part that is common
to class b and class a, then there is a part common to class a and class c. A
syllogism in Darii would be represented by the formula :
b 3 c g (a-'A) .' 3 : a (fl'-'c)
which means : If A is contained in c, and if there exists a part that is common
to class a and class A, then there exists a part common to class a and class c.
And granted the equation a^- b = b'—a (which is nothing but the symbol
of the simple conversion of particular affirmatives), the first “ syllogism ” is
reducible to the second, which procedure is in conformity with classical logic.
(But it could be said with equal right that the second is reducible to the first.)
Similarly a syllogism in Celarent would be represented by the formula
A Zb — c : a "D A : 3 .* a 3 — c
which means : If A is contained in the contrary class of c (that is, in the group
of individuals that are not in the class c) and if a is contained in the class A,
then a is contained in the contrary class of c. A syllogism in Barbara would be
represented by the formula :
A 3 c.a 3 A ; 3 .' a 3 c
that is : If A is contained in the class c, and if a is contained in the class A,
then a is contained in the class c. Granting that
d — — c.=.c = — d
(to say that the class d is the contrary class of c is equivalent to saying that the
class c is the contrary class of d), the first “ syllogism ” is reducible to the second
—by merely calling the term d, c. But this is no longer conformable to classical
logic, and is valid only for the laws of the algebra of signs, not for those of the
logic of thought, for (1) we do not think a syllogism in Celarent in this way :
Every man is a non-angel,
but every philosopher is a man,
therefore every philosopher is a non-angel,
and (2) the substitution of non-angel by a term d (such as “ corporeal ”)
signifying the “ contrary class ” of the class “ angel,” would cause a change
in the very matter of the syllogism.
 224 LOGIC

by a series of transformations which reduce such and such a

mood to such and such another, there finally remain but
three original moods : Barbara, Darapti and Bramantip.1
Therefore the whole theory of the syllogism is an “ illusion
due to the imperfect means of expression used by the
Scholastics.”
Signor Padoa, shocked at “ the great number of moods ”
admitted by the ancients, seems to be unaware that Aristotle
and the Scholastics were acquainted with the reduction of
moods long before his time, and that they allowed only the
four moods of the first figure to subsist as perfect moods.
To criticise
the syl¬
Especially does he appear to ignore the fact that the
logism in
the name
nineteen classical moods of the syllogism are in no sense
of Logistics
is to sin
formulas of logical algebra constituting a ready-reckoner of
through
ignorance
signs comparable to those7 of Logistics, but are in truth
of the
question.
types of rational operations effected naturally by the intel¬
ligence in the actual course of thinking. Nor does he advert
to the cardinal point, that the principles and object of
Logistics are essentially different from those of Logic and that
it is consequently as absurd to apply a logistic treatment to
the nineteen moods of the syllogism as it would be to apply
a musical method to the construction of houses or the
commanding of armies.
There is no common measure, only pure equivocity,
between the logistical “ reduction ” and the “ logical ”
“ reduction ” of the moods of the syllogism. The operations
by which the logistician “ reduces ” one mood to another
are altogether different from logical operations (they are
not operations of the reason, of thought, concerned with the
order of intellectual objects, but algebraic operations con¬
cerned with signs, abstracting from every intellectual
operation). For the logistician the reduction of one formula
to another implies the pure and simple suppression of the
first in favour of the second (there is no reason for keeping
an algorismic symbol when another is its equivalent),
whereas, for the logician, reduction in no way prevents the

1 Bramantip (or Bamalip) is the mnemonic word substituted for Baralipton

to designate the first mood of the first indirect figure by those logicians who
consider the latter as an independent (fourth) figure. See above, Chap. Ill,
Section 2, § 2, note 27.
 REASONING 225

first formula from continuing to be valid in its own right

as a natural and primary operation of the reason.
In view of this it is not surprising that the logician and
the logistician should achieve different results in reducing
the moods, nor that Signor Padoa’s method should recognize
as primary moods only Barbara, Darapti and Bramantip (the
latter two considered as false, as we shall see below) in place
of the four moods of the first figure which “ classical Logic ”
allows to subsist as “ perfect.” The logistic result remains
absolutely foreign to Logic itself, and cannot be considered
as a criticism of the syllogistic theory except in the eyes of a
barbarus in arte logica.
II. Subalternation, Partial Conversion, Syllogisms in Darapti
and Baralipton (Bamalip). Several logisticians (MacColl,
Miss Ladd, Shroeder, Nagy, Peano, etc.) followed in France
by Couturat 1 and Rougier,2 believe that they have dis¬
covered the falsity or illegitimacy of subalternation, of
partial conversion (conversio per accidens) and of syllogisms in
Darapti and Baralipton (Bamalip).3 Their claims may be
summarized as follows : (1) Every particular affirmative
(1) implies the existence of subjects having such and such a
Pr. : “ some men are learned ” implies that there exist
certain subjects possessing human nature who are learned.
(2) Universal affirmative propositions (A) on the contrary,
contain no affirmation of existence whatsoever : in the
proposition : “ every centaur is half-man, half-horse ” the
affirmation is concerned exclusively with the conformity
of the Pr. “ half-man half-horse ” to the object of thought
“ centaur,” or, as these authors would say, it concerns only
the inclusion of the “ class ” centaur in the “ class ” half¬
man half-horse, independently of all existence.4
It follows, then, that if we conclude from A to I, I will
contain an affirmation of existence that A did not contain, ^‘fteI““sof
in A I or in
A A I.
1 Cf. Couturat, La Logique de Leibniz, pp. 9 and 19.
2 Cf. Louis Rougier, La Structure des theories dSductives, Paris, Alcan, 1921.
3 This criticism applies also to syllogisms in Fapesmo (Fesapo) and Felapton,
if what is said here of affirmatives be extended also to negative propositions.
4 As we have seen above (No. 23), even in this case the verb to be continues
to signify existence, but ideal existence. The copula signifies the relation of the
Pr. half-man half-horse to the S. centaur, inasmuch as they are identified with
each other in a certain existence, in the existence which beings of reason have in
the mind.
 226 LOGIC

and we will have performed an illegitimate operation. But

this is what we do in subalternation, in partial conversion,
and in the syllogistic moods (Baralipton and Darapti) wherein
from two A premisses we infer an I conclusion. Therefore
these operations taught by classical Logic, are in reality
illegitimate. This, says Padoa,1 is “ one of the first and most
remarkable results of adopting an ideographic logic.”
It is also in truth a perfect example of the errors to which
the adoption of an ideographic logic can lead in the absence
of a preliminary and profound investigation of logical
problems and clearly shows the disadvantages resulting
from an ignorance of the works of the ancients. The logi¬
cians of the Middle Ages had long since probed into all
the elements of the problem which the logisticians claim
to have unearthed and had very clearly indicated its solu¬
tion.2 3 The theory of the suppositio and the ampliation espe¬
cially as developed by the Aristotelio-Thomist school in its
controversy with the “ Terminists ” (the school of Occam),
contains, among many other remarks, all that is needed to
answer the difficulties raised by MacColl and his emulators.
We shall try to set forth this answer here by assembling the
pertinent information scattered here and there among the
works of the ancients.
(i) First let us observe that this problem exceeds the
limits of Lesser or Formal Logic and encroaches upon the
realm of Greater Logic. For the existential or non-existen-
tial signification of a proposition depends upon its matter,
and not upon its form alone. The fundamental error of the
logisticians lies in their failure to distinguish between the
form and the matter of propositions and in their belief that

1 Alessandro Padoa, La Logique Deductive, Paris, 1912, p. 79, note 2.

2 Cf. Javelli, Ij)gicae compendium peripateticae, Venetiis, 1541, tract. VII,
de suppositionibus, Chap. IV and VI ; tract. IX, de consequentiis, Chap. IV,
§ 2.—John of St. Thomas, Logica, pp. 32-33, 72, 170.—The reason that no
specific discussions of the case of syllogisms in A A I are to be found in the works
of these authors is that they were careful to add to their treatises on the
syllogism : “ Tu autem adverte novitie, quod praedictas defensiones servare n~,n
poteris, donee intellexeris tractatum suppositionum et ampliationum et appellationum
et probationum terminorum ” (Javelli, p. 168). Thus the application of these
rules to Baralipton and Darapti followed as a matter of course. However,
Messrs. MacColl, Schroeder, etc., may be granted the honour of having made
the discussion centre explicitly upon this point.
3 See above, Nos. 27 and 28.
 REASONING 227

considerations bearing exclusively on the form suffice to

explain the entire discourse.
(2) From the point of view of matter we must distinguish
between propositions in necessary matter, that is, those in which
the Pr. is essential to the S. (in which case we say that the S.
has suppositio naturalis) and propositions in contingent matter,
that is, those wherein the Pr. is accidental to the S. (the S.
has a suppositio accidentalis).
In the first case the proposition expresses an eternal
truth and affirms only the relation (of identification)
between the object of thought signified by the Pr. and the
object of thought signified by the S. [habitudinem praedicati ad
subjectum). Thus it does not require the actual existence of
the subject in order to be true (non requiritur existentia
subjecti ut praedicatum verificetur de subjecto) and has not neces¬
sarily and of itself an “ existential ” sense.
In the second case the proposition expresses a contingent
truth, and for this reason, that is, inasmuch as it does not
express an eternal truth, it requires the (actual) existence
of the subject in order to be true. It has an “ existential ”
sense (dicit et habitudinem et existentiam) ; since the Pr. does
not follow from the nature of the subject, it could not be
verified except of a subject posited in existence.
(3) But it is false both that the first case is realized only
in universal affirmative propositions and is always realized
therein, and that the second case is always realized in
particular affirmatives and nowhere else. Each of these cases
may be realized both for A and for I.

Every man is mortal, An I pro¬

position
Some man is creable, may
attribute
Some animal (viz., man) is rational. an essential
Pr. to
the S.
These three propositions express eternal truths and remain
equally true even if no man exists.

Some angel is damned, An A may

attribute
Every man is born in sin, an acci¬
dental Pr.
All were taken prisoners. to the S,

These three propositions express contingent truths and would

be false if no angel or man existed.
 228 LOGIC

(4) Moreover, when a proposition, for example an A,

states an essential Pr. it is not necessarily and of itself con¬
cerned with anything except the relation of the Pr. to the S.,
that is, with the simply ideal existence of this S. with this
Pr. But there is nothing to prevent the mind from adding
an existential sense to it (the truth expressed ceasing in this
case to be an eternal truth) as it does in all the universals
obtained by induction in the experimental sciences.

Every acid makes litmus paper turn red.

Every mammal is viviparous.

Taken in themselves these propositions would, no doubt,

remain true even were there neither acids nor mammals,
but actually we never think of them without understanding
that there are acids and that there are mammals.
An A pro¬
position
The first principle to which the logisticians appeal is
whose Pr. is
essential to
therefore doubly false : not only are there A propositions
the S. may
have an
whose Pr. is accidental to the S. and which for this reason have
“ existen¬
tial ”
an existential signification, but A propositions, whose Pr.
significa¬
tion.
is essential to the S., may also be understood as having an
existential signification.
(5) On the other hand, when a proposition, for example
an I, states an accidental Pr., it implies, as we have seen,
the actual existence of its subject in the same measure in
which the suppositio is accidentalis, that is to say, in the measure
in which the proposition does not of itself express an eternal
truth. But the mind is always free to vary the suppositio,
while the form of the proposition remains the same, and to
make the affirmation bear upon simply possible or ideal
existence, and in this manner render the proposition neces¬
sary and eternally true (called by the ancients ampliatio in
ordine ad tempos). Thus the proposition

Some man is sincere

is amplified if we understand it in the sense that

Some man (as a possible creature) is sincere.

In other words, “ human nature is not exclusive of sincerity ”

(it was in this sense that Lachelier understood all I proposi¬
tions). This proposition remains true even if no man exists.
 REASONING 229

In mathematics this absolutio a tempore, this transfer to

simply possible existence, occurs of itself:

Some magnitudes are incommensurable.

Some angles are obtuse.

That is, there are (in possible existence) obtuse angles and An I pro¬
position
magnitudes that lack a common measure. whose Pr.
is accidental
Thus the second principle invoked by the logisticians is to the S.
may
doubly false. Not only do there exist I propositions whose receive an
ideal
Pr. is essential to the S. and for this reason do not necessarily signification.

have an existential sense, but also the I propositions whose

Pr. is accidental to the S. may be freed from the temporal
order by thought and elevated by ampliatio to the order of
ideal existence, and in this case they no longer imply the
actual existence of their S.
(6) Furthermore, it is always possible for the thinking mind
(for which Logic is constructed) to keep the same kind of
suppositio in passing from an A to an I proposition, whether
it attaches an existential sense to A, and consequently
does the same in thinking I, or whether it abstracts from
actual existence in thinking A and does likewise in thinking I.
And from the fact that the kind of suppositio (that is, in
this case the mode of existence in relation to which the
suppositio is taken) 1—is not changed, the sequences in ques¬
tion are legitimate. For example :
(a) Sub alternation. If we say, in abstracting from actual
existence in the A proposition :

Every man has imperfections (whether or not men

exist)

we conclude rightly that :

Therefore some man (even for example a saint) has

imperfections

for the subalternate also abstracts from actual existence. Inferences

in A I.
(But we would conclude wrongly were we to say : there¬
fore some man has imperfections, in the sense that : there
exist in the world men who have imperfections ; for were

1 Sec above, pp. 62-63.

 230 LOGIC

there no men in the world this proposition would be false,

although the subalternant would still be true.)
On the other hand, if we attach an existential sense to A,
and say :

Every man has imperfections (and men exist)

then we conclude rightly in saying : therefore some (existing)

man has imperfections.
(/3) Partial Conversion. If we attach an existential sense
to A and say :

Every bat is a mammal (and bats exist)

we conclude correctly that: therefore some (existing)

mammal is a bat.
If, in abstracting from actual existence in A, we say :

Every philosopher is a man (whether or not there are

philosophers)

we conclude correctly that : therefore some man is a

philosopher, on condition we understand by means of an
ampliatio that : therefore some man (as a possible creature)
is a philosopher.
and in (y) Syllogisms in Baralipton and Darapti. If we reason in
A A I.
Baralipton and say, attaching an existential sense to the
Major 1 :

Every visionary is a dangerous man,

but every Utopian is a visionary (and Utopians exist),

we conclude quite legitimately that

Therefore some dangerous (existing) man is a Utopian.

And if, keeping the Major in the order of eternal truth,

we say :

Every cowardly act is despicable,

but every lie is a cowardly act (whether or not lies exist),

1 In the construction of a syllogism of the first indirect figure we start with

the Minor. For those, on the contrary, who look upon the fourth figure as
autonomous (represented therefore by Bamalip or Bramantip, and not by
Baralipton) the same syllogism is constructed, in the same way as all the others,
with the Major as the first premise.
 REASONING 231

we also conclude legitimately : therefore some despicable

act (taken in possible existence) is a lie.
Likewise, in reasoning in Darapti, we conclude in a per¬
fectly valid manner :
Every bat has wings (and bats exist),
but every bat is a mammal,
therefore some (existing) mammal has wings.
Every poet is an artist (whether poets exist or not),
but every poet is a man,
therefore some man (as a possible creature) is an artist.
Every square has four right angles,
but every square is a rhombus,
therefore some rhombus has four right angles.
The additions which we have placed in parentheses in
these examples in order to make manifest the unexpressed
thought, need not be explicitly stated,1 for they introduce
no necessary statement on the side of the form, but serve
only to specify the manner in which the mind should make
use of sequences that are in themselves valid. In short, they
simply indicate certain conditions of legitimacy among the
multitude of similar conditions which concern the suppositio
of terms and which ancient Logic treated in great detail.
Thus subalternation, partial conversion, and syllogisms
in AAI, are of themselves just as legitimate for the logician
as any other valid logical sequences.
(7) If the logisticians claim the contrary, and congratu-
1 This would not be true in passing from an A to a singular, for in that case,
even if we attached an existential sense to the A proposition, the singular
consequent might be false (if its subject did not exist) the while the universal
antecedent remained true :
Every man is mortal (and°men exist),
therefore Peter is mortal.
In the supposition that Peter did not exist, the consequent would be false and
the antecedent would remain true. The rule set forth by the Scholastics for
similar cases stipulates that in order for the sequence to be valid an explicit
statement must be added, viz., the affirmation of the existence of the subject
(called the adders constantiam by John of St. Thomas) : “ Every man is mortal,
and Peter exists, therefore Peter is mortal.”
They required that the same addition be made in the passage from a singular
negative to a particular negative. “ Peter is not bald. Therefore some man is
not bald ” ; supposing that Paul alone existed in the world, and that he were
bald, then every man would be bald and the consequent “ some man is not
bald,” would be false, the while the antecedent, “ Peter is not bald ” remained
true, since Peter does not exist. That is the reason why we must say “ Peter
is not bald, and Peter exists, therefore some man is not bald.”
 232 LOGIC

late themselves upon a discovery that is neither new nor

true, it is because the very principle from which their method
proceeds requires that everything be expressed, and that there
be nothing in the reasoning that is not in the signs of the
reasoning, for once the latter signs have been ascertained
they are supposed to be self-sufficient.
But in this very principle, Logistics, if it professes to be a
system of logic, is the negation of Logic. For Logic is an
art made to serve the intelligence, not to replace it ; the
task of formal Logic is to teach those modes of procedure
which entail no risk of error on the side of the form (that is,
the disposition of terms), and which do not betray the intel¬
ligence on the condition that it perform an act of thought,
that the mind really move. It is not its function to
provide us with formulas that suffice for their own develop¬
ment, an algorismic machine that is self-operative the while
the intelligence remains at rest or exerts itself only to
superintend this movement.
This lengthy discussion will not have been unprofitable
if it has shown us the precision and depth of the notion of
Logic that was held by the ancients. From the very fact
that language is a system of material signs destined to
express the life of immaterial thought, they saw that it
must necessarily be a system that is neither rigid nor mechanical,
nor independent of the activity of the mind. They saw
also that it entails the possibility of various procedures
ordered by thought (whence the imperfections, the inevit¬
Language able dangers and difficulties the mastery of which it is Logic’s
cannot be
system of precise duty to teach us), and entailing the possibility of
mechanic¬
ally varying within certain limits the intelligible sound conveyed
determined
signs. by one and the same combination of signs, a possibility
which is strikingly manifested in the scholastic theory of
the suppositio.
Because they have failed to take this theory into con¬
sideration, modern logicians have become involved in
many futile quarrels, each one claiming to attribute for¬
ever to certain propositions a sense that corresponds in
reality to a contingent suppositio, in which he has arbitrarily
and unconsciously fixed his thought. Thus for Lachelier 1
1 Lachelier, Etudes sur It Syllogisme, pp. 53-57.
 REASONING 233
every particular affirmative proposition (as opposed to
those which he calls “ partial collectives,” see above,
No. 51, e) of itself has no existential sense, but only a sense
de jure, whereas for the logisticians affirmative particulars
have, on the contrary, nothing but an existential sense.
For Whitehead 1 every affirmative universal implies a
judgment of existence, whereas for MacColl 2 and the
logisticians cited above, no affirmative universal could ever
have an existential sense.
We may conclude therefore that the so-called demonstra¬
tion of the invalidity of inferences in A I proves but one
thing : the danger of adopting too summary an ideographic
Logic. Especially does it reveal the fundamental falsity of
every alleged Logic that aims at fixing the work of the
intelligence once and for all in ideographic symbols and
requires, not that these symbols signify the diverse inflections
and the nice edge of thought more exactly than ordinary
language—a perfectly legitimate ambition—but that they
substitute a certain regulated manipulation of algebraic signs
for the work of thought itself. An ideographic Logic, thus
conceived, could never be adequate to its object unless it
were to replace the difficulties of rational labour by an
infinite material complication. In truth it could not fix
thought except as in the way that most stains used in
histology fix living matter—by killing it.

§ 4. The Expository Syllogism

*85. NOTION OF THE EXPOSITORY SYLLOGISM. In the

ordinary categorical syllogism, which we have just studied,
the M is an universal term. In the expository syllogism
(syllogism “ of exposition,” syllogismus expositorius) the M is a
singular term. Example :
The
Judas turned traitor, expository
syllogism
but Judas was an apostle, is a syllo¬
gism
therefore an apostle turned traitor. whose M
is a
singular
1 Whitehead, Universal Algebra, Cambridge, 1898, Vol. I, p. 104. term.
* MacColl, The Calculus of Equivalent Statements, ap. Proceedings of the
Mathematical Society, Vol. IX, June 13th, 1878. Cf. Symbolical Reasoning,
ap. Mind, No. 17, January, 1880.
 234 LOGIC

This singular M 1 makes evident or “ exposes ” the union

of T and t to each other, hence the name “expository”
syllogism.
We must note, however, that this form has only the
exterior appearance of a syllogism, for it is not one in
reality : it is not an inference, it is simply a sensible representa¬
But it is
not really a tion or an exposition to the senses. Undoubtedly it conforms
syllogism.
to the principle of identity, but this principle does not
regulate a movement of the intelligence here, nor does it
cause any passage from one truth to another truth. To know
that the apostle Judas turned traitor to his master is to know
already in act that an apostle turned traitor. The syllogistic
form has no role here other than that of rendering materially
or sensibly evident to me (in the order of sensible representa¬
tions which I use to think), of making me “ put my finger
on,” a truth of which I already possessed intellectual
knowledge.2 For this reason the expository syllogism is
immediately ruled by the principle of triple identity or of
the separating third, without the intermediation of the

1 Obviously this M must be absolutely singular, that is to say incommunicable,

otherwise we would be reasoning with four terms (cf. above, No. 51, inset), as
in saying :

The straight line AB is identical with the straight line AB,

but the straight line AB is identical with the straight line BA,

therefore the straight line BA is identical with the straight line AB.

In the Major AB stands for AB taken under the aspect AB, and in the Minor

it stands for AB taken under the aspect BA.

2 Cf. the opuscula De Natura Syllogismorum . . . “ Syllogismus expositorius
non est vere syllogismus, sed magis quaedam sensibilis demonstratio seu
quaedam resolutio facta ad sensum, ad hoc ut consequentia quae vera erat
secundum intellectualem cognitionem, declaretur in sensibili.” “ In this
case,” adds P. Richard (Phil, du Raisonnement, p. 361), the syllogistic form
plays the same role as does the material object or the diagram drawn upon the
blackboard as a help in certain demonstrations.”
It could be objected (cf. Lachclier, Etudes sur le Syllogisme, p. 56), that an
expository syllogism such as, “ Peter is sincere, but Peter is a man, therefore
some man is sincere ” is a true reasoning inasmuch as the conclusion does not
express the simple fact (already expressed in the Major) that a certain man is
sincere, but signifies this general truth that human nature is not exclusive of
sincerity. In reality, however, this last meaning, far from being inferred by the
pseudo-syllogism in question, is communicated by the mind to the conclusion
in virtue of an inductive ascensus (ascensus disjunctions : a certain man is sincere,
therefore some man is sincere—see above, No. 17 and below, No. 96). The
conclusion as presented in the expository syllogism signifies only this fact, that
a certain determinate man is sincere.
 REASONING 235

dictum de omni or de nullo (which is necessarily implied in

every genuine syllogistic inference by the very fact that it
has a universal objective concept as its middle term).
The expository syllogism may be constructed in all the
figures, but the third figure is most naturally suited to it,
since what is proper to the individual is not to be attributable
to a subject but to be itself the subject.
In the second figure, besides the ordinary negative
moods, it has four affirmative moods (premisses A A, I I,
A I, I A). On the other hand, in the third figure it may
have only two moods (premisses A A and E A)—the letter A
designating here, not a universal affirmative but a singular
affirmative and the letter E a singular negative.

DIVISION OF THE SYLLOGISM

r True (syllogism First figure

r in the pure and Second figure
Categorical simple sense of Third figure
the word)
. (expository)
SYLLOGISM -

Conditional
Hypothetical Disjunctive
L Conjunctive

B. THE CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM

§ i. Hypothetical Syllogisms in General

86. hypothetical syllogisms. In the categorical syllo¬
gism (the syllogism in the pure and simple sense of the
word) which we have just studied, the Major was a simple or
categorical proposition.
HYPOTHETICAL The hypo¬
thetical
syllogism
syllogisms are those in which the Major is a hypothetical or has for its
Major a
compound proposition, and the Minor posits or destroys one hypothetical
proposition
of the parts of the Major. one of
whose
This second condition is indispensable to a truly hypothetical members is
posited or
syllogism.1 Even though its Major and even all of its destroyed
by the
propositions (proximate matter) be hypothetical, a syllogism Minor.

1 Cf. Gredt, Elementa, I, No. 67.

236 LOGIC

such as : “ If Peter is rational he has the power of laughter ;

but if Peter is a man he is rational ; therefore if Peter is a
man he has the power of laughter,” is in reality a categorical
syllogism. In this case we have three conditional proposi¬
tions united to one another in the same manner as are the
propositions of an ordinary categorical syllogism (by the
identification of two extreme terms to a middle term).
In other words we have a categorical syllogism whose terms
are propositions :
Everything inferring that Peter is rational infers that
Peter has the power of laughter,
but that Peter is a man infers that Peter is rational,
therefore that Peter is a man infers that Peter has the
power of laughter.
This is a categorical syllogism in Barbara having as its
middle term the complex term “ inferring that Peter is
rational.” Evidently then, the difference between the
categorical and hypothetical syllogism is deeper than a
simple difference in proximate matter : it is the very struc¬
ture, the essence of the syllogism that differs in these two
cases (see below, No. 89).
As we have seen above, hypothetical syllogisms are
either conditional, disjunctive, conjunctive 1 or copulative. From
the latter type nothing can be inferred. Therefore we have
but three kinds of hypothetical syllogisms to consider :
Conditional.
Disjunctive.
Conjunctive.

As the last two types are reducible to the first, it is to this

first type—the conditional syllogism—that we shall give special
attention.

(a) the disjunctive syllogism. The Major is a dis¬

junctive proposition (copula, or) ; the Minor posits or
destroys one of the members of the disjunction, the Con¬
clusion destroys or posits the other.1 2

1 See above, Chap. II, Section 2, note 9.

2 For the cases in which the Major is an improperly disjunctive proposition,
see above, No. 46, 2, c, pp. 103-104.
 REASONING 237

Two figures, accordingly as the Minor posits (in which

instance the Conclusion destroys), or destroys (in which
instance the Conclusion posits), and four moods in each,
accordingly as the parts of the major are (1) both affirma¬
tive, (2) affirmative and negative, (3) negative and affirmative,
(4) both negative (see the table below).
The disjunctive syllogism may be reduced to the con¬
ditional syllogism : “ If we have a leader we shall not be
powerless, but we have a leader, therefore, etc.” “ If
we do not have a leader, we shall be powerless, but we
have no leader, therefore, etc.” (It may also be reduced
directly to a categorical syllogism—at least when the two
members of the Major have the same subject : “ those
who have a leader are not powerless, but we shall have a
leader, therefore, etc.”)

FIGURES AND MOODS OF THE DISJUNCTIVE SYLLOGISM

First Figure Second Figure

(ponendo-tollens) (tollendo-ponens)
We shall either have a leader We shall either have a leader
or be powerless. or be powerless.
ist mood But we shall have a leader, But we shall not have a leader,
Therefore we shall not be Therefore we shall be power-
powerless. less.

We shall either have a leader We shall either have a leader

omo or not co-operate, or not co-operate,
But we shall have a leader, But we have no leader,
Therefore we shall co-operate. Therefore we shall not co-
operate.

We shall either have no leader We shall either have no leader

or obey. or obey,
3RD moud gut we sjla[[ have no leader, But we shall have a leader,
Therefore we shall not obey. Therefore we shall obey.

We shall either have a leader We shall either not have a

or not all be able to command. leader or not all be able to
4TH mood But we shall not have a leader, command,
Therefore we shall all be able But we shall have a leader,
to command. Therefore we shall not all be
able to command.

(b) the conjunctive syllogism. The Major is a

conjunctive proposition (A cannot at the same time be B
and C) which denies that two propositions (having the
same S) can be at the same time true.
 238 LOGIC

Only one figure (ponendo-tollens), in which the Minor posits

one of the two members of the Major, and the Conclusion
destroys the other member : “No man can serve both
God and Mammon at the same time ; but Judas serves
Mammon, therefore he does not serve God (but John
serves God, therefore he does not serve Mammon).”
The figure tollendo-ponens is not valid, for both members
of the Major can be false at the same time.1
The conjunctive syllogism may be reduced to the con¬
ditional syllogism : “ If a man serve God, he does not
serve Mammon, but John serves God, therefore, etc.”
(It may also be reduced directly to a categorical syllo¬
gism : “ He who serves God does not serve Mammon,
but John serves God, etc.”)
(c) Aristotle does not speak of the hypothetical syllo¬
gism. The expression ovXXoyioiios viroOiaews does not
signify a hypothetical syllogism to him, but signifies a cate¬
gorical syllogism the conclusion of which depends upon some
postulate.2 3 The theory of hypothetical syllogisms was first
treated by Theophrastus, a disciple of Aristotle, and was
developed principally by Chrysippus and the Stoics. It
was studied in great detail during the Middle Ages
through the influence of Boethius who, using Greek
sources, expounded it in a very detailed, precise and
“ remarkably complete ” manner (Prantl, Geschichte der
Logik, p. 700).

§ 2. The Conditional Syllogism

87. the conditional syllogism. When the major is a
conditional proposition (copula if), one of whose members
is either posited or destroyed by the minor 3 the syllogism is
CONDITIONAL,

e.g., if the earth turns, it moves, but it does turn, therefore

it moves.

1 Nevertheless, by accident, and by reason of the matter (if there is no middle

term), we may reason in this figure : “No one can be dead and alive at the
same time, but Peter is not dead, therefore he is alive.”
9
* ^’ Wa*tz> I, 427, ad Anal. Pr. I, 23, 40 b 25; Hamelin, Le Syst.
d Anstote., p. 181, note 1.
3 See above, No. 86.
 REASONING 239

The entire theory of the conditional syllogism rests upon The con¬
ditional
the assertion formulated above,1 that in conditional proposi¬ syllogism
has for its
tions the affirmation bears uniquely upon the necessary Major a
Conditional
connection between the propositions (with the sequence or proposition,
one of
inference itself). Consequently that which is stated by the whose
members is
Major of a conditional syllogism (granting that the condi¬ posited or
destroyed
tional proposition is true) is simply a valid sequence. by the
Minor.
Thus we see that the supreme principle of the conditional
syllogism is the very same as the one which we have said above Supreme
principle
to be the essential law of all argumentation, and which is but an
immediate determination of the principle of identity or
non-contradiction.2 In every_ valid sequence, it is impossible
that the antecedent be true and the consequent false ; in other words,
by the very fact that the antecedent is true the consequent is also
true (and therefore if the consequent is false the antecedent
is false). Note carefully however that the inverse is not
true, and that it is possible that a true consequent follow
from a false antecedent : if the antecedent is false the
consequent may be true ; and therefore if the consequent
is true the antecedent is not for that reason true (my pocket-
book is in the moon, but the moon is in my pocket, therefore
my pocket-book is in my pocket).
and the
Whence are derived the special rules for the conditional special
rules for the
syllogism : I. To posit the condition is to posit the conditioned. conditional
syllogism:
(If Peter is speaking to me he exists ; but he is speaking to t.o posit
the Condi¬
me, therefore he exists.) tion is to
posit the
II. But to posit the conditioned is not to posit thereby the Conditioned.
To posit the
condition. (If Peter is speaking to me, he exists ; but he Conditioned
is not to
exists, therefore he is speaking to me : this is an illegitimate posit the
Condition.
conclusion, for he can exist without speaking to me.)
To remove
III. To destroy the conditioned is to destroy the condition. the Con¬
ditioned is to
(If Peter is speaking to me he exists : but he does not exist, remove the
Condition.
therefore he is not speaking to me.)
IV. But to destroy the condition is not to destroy thereby the But to
remove the
Condition
conditioned. (If Peter is speaking to me he exists ; but he is is not to
not speaking to me, therefore he does not exist : this is an remove the
Conditioned.
illegitimate conclusion, for he may very well exist without
speaking to me.)
1 See above, No. 46, 3 sqq. Only Majors that are conditional in the strict
sense are treated in the theory of the conditional syllogism.
J See above, No. 65.
 240 LOGIC

Many errors and sophisms arise from the neglect of these

rules. It often happens, particularly in the natural sciences,
that a hypothesis be looked upon as “ demonstrated ” because
certain conclusions drawn from it are verified by facts.
Such an hypothesis may nevertheless be merely probable
(for example Newton’s hypothesis in astronomy) or even
entirely false (e.g., the Darwinian hypothesis in biology).

FIGURES AND MOODS OF THE CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM

First Figure Second Figure

(ponendo-ponens) 1 (tollendo-tollens) 2
'If Peter died a martyr’s death If Peter died a martyr’s death
he is in heaven, he is in heaven,
1ST MOOD But Peter died a martyr’s But Peter is not in heaven,
death, Therefore he did not die a
^Therefore he is in heaven. martyr’s death.

'If Peter died a martyr’s death If Peter died a martyr’s death

he did not deny his faith. he did not deny his faith.
But Peter died a martyr’s But Peter did deny his faith.
2ND MOOD <
death, Therefore he did not die a
Therefore he did not deny martyr’s death.
his faith.

'If Peter does not love his If Peter does not love his
neighbour he lacks charity. neighbour he lacks charity.
3RD MOOD - But Peter does not love his But Peter does not lack charity,
neighbour. Therefore he loves his neigh¬
s Therefore he lacks charity. bour.

Tf Peter does not love his If Peter does not love his
neighbour whom he sees, he neighbour whom he sees, he
does not love God whom he does not love God whom he
does not see, does not see.
4.TH MOOD <
But Peter does not love his But Peter loves God whom he
neighbour whom he sees, does not see,
Therefore he does not love Therefore he loves his neigh¬
.God whom he does not see. bour whom he sees.

There are two legitimate figures 3 for the conditional

syllogism accordingly as the minor posits the condition
1 ^lat *s. to say> which in positing (the Condition in the Minor) posits (the
Condition in the Conclusion).
2 That is, which, in destroying (the Conditioned in the Minor) destroys (the
Condition in the Conclusion).
3 The word figure is used here by analogy. In the categorical syllogism the
figure depends upon the function of the mean of the argumentation (the middle
term) in the premisses. In the conditional syllogism it depends equally upon
the role of the mean (but which is in this case a proposition) in the premisses
(the first figure : condition in the Major, posited in the Minor ; second figure,
conditioned in the Major and destroyed in the Minor).
 REASONING 24I

(in which case the Conclusion posits the Conditioned)

or destroys the conditioned (in which case the Conclusion
destroys the Condition). In each of these figures there
are four moods, accordingly as the parts of the major
are 1 both affirmative, 2 affirmative and negative,
3 negative and affirmative, 4 both negative.
The figure (ponendo-ponens) wherein to posit the Con¬
ditioned would be to posit the Condition is illegitimate ;
e.g., “ if Peter died a martyr’s death he is in heaven, but
he is in heaven, therefore he died a martyr’s death. . . .”
The figure (tollendo-tollens) wherein to destroy the Condition
would be to destroy the Conditioned is likewise illegitimate:
“ if Peter died a martyr’s death he is in heaven, but he did
not die a martyr’s death, therefore he is not in heaven.”
88. the resolution of conditional syllogisms into
categorical syllogisms. It is often said that the condi¬
tional syllogism may be reduced to the categorical syllogism
by taking, as the Major, a universal proposition that has
for its S. the Pr. of the Condition and for its Pr. the Pr. of The con¬
ditional
the Conditioned. Thus the syllogism : “ If Peter is a martyr syllogism
may be
he is a saint, but he is a martyr, therefore he is a saint,” resolved
into a
becomes : “ Every martyr is a saint, but Peter is a martyr, categorical
syllogism
therefore Peter is a saint.” the Major
of which
But this categorical Major expresses another truth than has for S.
the Pr. of
does the conditional Major. For the fact is that the condi¬ the Con¬
dition and
tional syllogism is not reducible to the categorical syllogism for Pr. the
Pr. of the
as the moods of the second and third figure 1 are reducible Conditioned

to those of the first, that is, as the imperfect to the perfect

in the same genus. It constitutes a distinct type of argumenta¬
tion, an original manner of procedure and, as such, is
properly irreducible. The proof of this will be evident if we
consider a conditional Major whose two members do not
have the same subject ; for example in the syllogism :
If the world exists, God exists,
but the world exists,
therefore God exists,
the reduction indicated above is impossible.
1 Nor, for even better reasons, as the moods of the fourth figure are reduced
to the moods of the first, from which they differ only apparently.
 242 LOGIC

Neverthe¬
less, it
Therefore let us say rather that we can translate, or better,
constitutes
a distinct
resolve a conditional syllogism into a categorical syllogism
type of
reasoning.
either in the manner shown above, when the conditional
Major has but one S., or, in the contrary case, by first
resolving the syllogism under consideration into two con¬
ditional syllogisms each of whose Majors has but one
subject, for example :

(I) If the world exists it was That which exists (with¬

created by God, out being God) was created
But the world exists. by God,
which is in turn
Therefore it was created But the world exists (with¬
resolvable into
by God. out being God),
Therefore the world was
created by God.

(II) If God created the world,' He who created the world

God exists, exists,
which is in turn
But God did create the ► But God created the world,
resolvable into
world, Therefore God exists.
Therefore God exists.

True, in proceeding thus, we have destroyed both the

unity of the conditional syllogism, and that which consti¬
tuted its proper nature. But this is so whenever a whole is
resolved into its parts ; that which constitutes the unity
of the whole as such is by that very act dissolved. The
conditional syllogism is a syllogism of a type apart that
contains virtually in its unity either one or two categorical
syllogisms.

This is the direct consequence of the thesis established

above (No. 46, 3, a) that the conditional proposition
expresses a truth of another type, constructs an other object
of assent than does the categorical pi'oposition. It follows
then that the argumentation founded upon a categorical
Major must itself be necessarily other than the argumenta¬
tion founded upon a conditional Major.
But this by no means signifies that the conditional
syllogism indicates our possession of another logic and
of other laws of thought than those upon which the cate¬
gorical syllogism depends. In fact, on the contrary, the
conditional syllogism presupposes the categorical syllo¬
gism just as the conditional proposition presupposes the
categorical proposition. The reason that it does not
 REASONING 243

consist in establishing the union or connection of a Pr.

to a S. by means of a third term is, that this union or
connection is already made, already given, in one of the
members of the compound proposition which acts as
the Major in the conditional reasoning. Therefore there
are no grounds for seeing in the conditional syllogism a
mode of reasoning that escapes the Logic of “ inherence ”
or “ predication,” that is to say, the Logic which recog¬
nizes that we can neither judge nor reason without
attributing or refusing a Pr. to a S. The categorical
proposition consists in this attribution itself, and the
hypothetical or compound proposition which unites
two categorical propositions, supposes this attribution as
already made.

*89. THE NATURE OF THE CONDITIONAL SYLLOGISM. We

saw above 1 that the categorical syllogism orders discourse
according to the connection of terms. From an antecedent
that reveals in a third term the means by which, or the reason
for which, two terms should be united to (or separated from)
each other, it deduces or infers the proposition that unites
these two terms to one another (or separates them). Thus
it concludes, at least in so far as logical relations are con¬
cerned, from a more universal truth to a less universal truth
contained in it.
In order that these notions be applicable as such to the
conditional syllogism, the latter must be resolved into the
categorical syllogism, or the categorical syllogisms, which it
contains virtually. But these notions as such are not applic¬
able to the conditional syllogism considered in itself and in
its proper nature. So we may say that the conditional
syllogism and the categorical syllogism are alike in this :
that both have as their object the manifestation of the truth
of a conclusion by the resolution of the latter into the first princi¬
The con¬
ples of intelligibility,2 but that they differ in the following ditional
syllogism
characteristics : in conditional reasoning the mind does not infers a
conclusion
apprehend a Minor under the dependence of another from a pre¬
viously
proposition as it does in categorical reasoning ; it appre- formed and
affirmed
conclusion.

1 See Nos. 69 and 81.

1 See above, No. 66.
 244 LOGIC

hends a Minor under the dependence of a connection of

propositions of which this Minor is one of the members. The
conditional syllogism orders discourse according to the
connection of propositions ; from an antecedent which
sets forth (in the conditional Major) the connection of two
propositions (the sequence), and which presents one of these
two propositions as the means or the reason for positing (or
destroying) the other, it deduces or infers the position (or
destruction) of this other. Hence it is no longer a question
of manifesting the union (or separation) of two terms to
each other by means of a third term or concept, but of
manifesting by means of one of the members of the Major
the necessity of positing or destroying the other member.
Consequently the conditional syllogism does indeed con¬
clude from the whole to the part; but not, as in the cate¬
gorical syllogism, from a more universal (from the point of
view of the logical relations that exist between the connected
terms) to a less universal truth, but from a compound
proposition to one of the members which it contains. The
mind, in the conditional syllogism, does not infer one
proposition from another, it infers a proposition from an
inference that has already been made and affirmed between two
propositions. The need is not to see by a new light and in
virtue of an inference which the mind discovers while
it affects it, rather is it to affirm or deny something by a
renewed application of an already existing light and by the
use of a previously made inference.
It must be borne in mind, however, that the conditional
syllogism may be resolved into the categorical syllogism,
and that just as the union of propositions to each other
presupposes the union of terms, so does the logical
mechanism of the conditional syllogism presuppose the
logical mechanism of the categorical syllogism.
And that is the fundamental reason for which Aristotle
neglected to treat of the theory of the conditional syllogism
and why those modern logicians, who think to have found
in this theory the means of renovating Logic, are completely
Logically
it pre¬ mistaken. The conditional syllogism is not a primary
supposes
the cate¬ process of the reason ; this manner of inferring a proposi¬
gorical
syllogism. tion, not from another proposition, but from a previously
 REASONING 245

affirmed sequence between two propositions is, so to speak,

a reasoning in the second degree, grafted upon the cate¬
gorical syllogism which is the sole truly primary form of
rational discursus: “ If this figure inscribed in a semi¬
circle is a triangle, the sum of its angles is equal to two right
angles, therefore, etc.”—Granted.—But why is this con¬
ditional Major true ? Because the sum of the angles of a triangle
is equal to two right angles. “ If the human intelligence is
independent of matter in its specific operation, it is inde¬
pendent of matter in its being ; but, etc.”—Why is this
conditional Major true ? Because independence of matter in
the order of operation necessarily implies independence of
matter in the order of being ; in other words, because this
categorical Major is true : “ Everything independent of matter
in its specific operation is independent of matter in its being. In
order to give the reason for a conclusion we must always
definitively attain to an essence or a universal nature, that
is, to a categorical syllogism (or to an induction in the
experimental sciences).1 2 3

1 This important point did not escape Boethius : “ Praedicativa simplex est
propositio,” he wrote, “ conditionalis vero esse non potent, nisi ex praedicativis pro-
positionibus conjungatur. . . . Necesse est categoricos syllogismos hypotheticis vim con-
elusionis ministrare ” (De Syll. hyp., p. 607, cf. Prantl, Gesch. der Logik, I, 701).
It has, however, escaped the author of a recent treatise who completely
reverses the true order of things on this count and gratuitously turns Logic
upside down (cf. E. Goblot, TraiK de Logique, Nos. 98, 112, 118, 120, 153—159).
Because he misconceives the nature of the universal, the author, followed
in this by Rougier (Structure des theories diductives, p. 6 and sqq.), 1 believes
that the subject of every categorical proposition is in reality necessarily sin¬
gular. In so doing he confuses, as do many modern logicians, the real subject,
which is indeed always singular, with the logical subject, which may very well
be a universal nature communicable to individuals (“ Every man is mortal ”).
2 Consequently he completely destroys the theory of the categorical
syllogism, whose Major has, in his eyes, merely a collective signification (see
above, No. 81).
3 As a consequence he takes, as hypothetical syllogisms, syllogisms which
are, in reality, true categorical syllogisms disguised under a hypothetical form,
e-g;
Two triangles having their sides parallel are similar,
but the two triangles ABC and DEF have their sides parallel,
therefore they are similar.
This is but an authentic categorical syllogism camouflaged as a conditional :
Two triangles having their sides parallel are similar,
but the triangles ABC and DEF are two triangles having their sides
parallel,
therefore they are similar,
for the whole force of the inference in question comes from the identification
of the minor term, “ the triangles ABC and DEF ” with the' major term,
246 LOGIC

THE QUANTITY OF THE PREMISSES IN THE CONDITIONAL

SYLLOGISM

A conditional proposition is always universal in this

sense that its affirmation concerns only the sequence itself
which is declared to be always and everywhere valid.
However we may agree to designate as universal, par¬
ticular, or singular, a conditional wherein the proposition
expressing the conditioned is itself universal, particular
or singular.1
From this agreement results a remarkable property
of the conditional syllogism. Since the Major affirms the
connection not of two terms but of two propositions,
and the Minor states the position or destruction of one
of them, from which follows the position or destruction
of the other, the premisses of the conditional syllogism
may not only be both universal or one universal and the
other particular, but they may both be singular (if Peter
is a martyr he is a saint, but Peter is a martyr, therefore
he is a saint) or both particular (if some animal is rational,
he has an immortal soul, but some animal is rational,
therefore some animal has an immortal soul).

“similar,” by means of the middle term, “two triangles having parallel

sides,” and not from the positing, by the Minor, of the condition expressed in
the Major (since a minor term was introduced in the Minor and the latter
thus expresses something other than the simple condition). But we know (see above,
No. 86) that the true conditional syllogism differs from the categorical syllo¬
gism because of the very nature of the inference. Whatever the form in which
we may wish to express it, the reasoning given in the illustration above is
founded upon the union of the terms and the identification of the extremes
through the mean ; it is a categorical syllogism.
Therefore, since Goblot is really working with categorical syllogisms, it is
not surprising that he should have rediscovered all the known moods of the
categorical syllogism in his “ hypothetical syllogisms.” Because the scholastic
logicians did not make this same mistake, he upbraids them for their “ neg¬
ligence ” and reproaches them for having omitted the minor term in the
theory of the conditional syllogism (Logique, No. 98, p. 158). He does not
perceive that, in introducing this minor term, he himself disregards the proper
nature of the conditional syllogism and wholly destroys its distinctive character.
The theory of Demonstration proposed by this same author will be examined
in Major Logic.
1 If we agree to call “ negative ” those conditional propositions (see above,
No. 48 b) wherein the proposition expressing the conditioned is itself negative,
then we shall say that the Major : “ If Peter does not love his neighbour he
does not love God ” is negative, and that the conditional syllogism : “ If
Peter does not love his neighbour he does not love God, but he does not love
his neighbour, therefore, etc.,” has two negative premisses.
 REASONING 247

Because of this property, the conditional syllogism is

principally and most frequently used to establish the
truth of facts concerning particular events : “If the
criminal had escaped through the window, the window
would have been open, but the window was not open,
therefore, etc.”

c. division of the syllogism (both categorical and

conditional)

90. preliminary remarks. The following divisions are

“ accidental ” (i.e., unlike the preceding divisions they do
not relate to the very essence of the syllogism considered
in its form, see the schema, No. 85). They are concerned first
and foremost with the pure and simple, or categorical
syllogism, but they may be analogically applied to the
hypothetical, and particularly to the conditional, syllogism.
In order to avoid useless complications, however, we shall
draw our examples from the categorical syllogism alone,
except for the dilemma.

§ 1. Demonstrative, Probable, Erroneous and Sophistic

Syllogisms
91. By REASON OF THE PROXIMATE MATTER OF THE SYL¬
LOGISM (THE PROPOSITIONS) CONSIDERED AS TO ITS VALUE
we may have the following cases : 1 the premisses of the
syllogism cannot be false, in other words, they are
necessary.
In this case the Conclusion is the object of knowledge
and the syllogism is “ apodeictic ” or
DEMONSTRATIVE

2 The premisses may be false, in other words they are

contingent.
The Conclusion is then the object of opinion and the Demon-
strative,
probable.
erroneous
and
sophistic
syllogisms.
248 LOGIC

In this case the Conclusion is necessarily an error and the

syllogism is
ERRONEOUS.

4 The syllogism violates the rules and is consequently

defective on the side of form, but, at the same time, because
its matter disguises this defection, it

appears to be conclusive.

The conclusion is in this instance illusory—or fallacious

and the syllogism is said to be

SOPHISTIC.

DIVISION OF THE SYLLOGISM BY REASON OF THE PREMISSES CONSIDERED

AS TO THEIR VALUE

SYLLOGISM
C necessary ..... . demonstrative
contingent ..... . probable
PREMISSES ',impossible. . erroneous
(apparently correct (but not really so) . sophistic

(a) Sophisms may be studied in Lesser Logic because

they violate the formal rules of the syllogism (they are,
in other words, pseudo-syllogisms). But since it is their
matter that conceals their defective form and makes them
seem conclusive, and since sophisms are classified accord¬
ing to the different ways in which the matter of a pseudo¬
syllogism may disguise this defection, the study of sophisms
really belongs to Greater Logic.1
(b) BY REASON OF THE PROXIMATE MATTER CONSIDERED
AS TO THE QUALITY 2 OF THE CONCLUSION, that is
according as the conclusion is affirmative or negative, the
syllogism is divided into affirmative and negative.
(c) BY REASON OF THE PROXIMATE MATTER OF THE
SYLLOGISM CONSIDERED ACCORDINGLY AS THE PROPOSI¬
TIONS ARE MODAL OR SIMPLY ATTRIBUTIVE 3 the Syllogism
is either absolute or modal. In the first case its pre-

* Cf. Sanseverino, Elementa Philosophiae Christianae, Vol. I.

s See above, No. 48.
3 See above, No. 49.
 REASONING 249

misses are propositions de inesse ; in the second either

one or both of them are modal propositions. For example :

It is necessary that every animal be corruptible,

but it is possible that an intelligent living being be
an animal,
therefore it is possible that an intelligent living being
be corruptible.

When the two premisses are modal de necessario or de

impossibili, the conclusion is of the same mood and the
rules of the syllogism are easily applicable. But the other
possible combinations give rise to such complications
that the theory of the modal syllogism (treated in detail
by Aristotle in the first book of the Prior Analytics) 1 has
been called the “ logician’s cross,” crux logicorum.

§ 2. Incomplete Syllogisms
92. BY REASON OF THE PROXIMATE MATTER OF THE
SYLLOGISM (THE PROPOSITIONS) CONSIDERED AS TO ITS
integrity—the syllogism is complete when the two premisses The
Enthymeme
are explicitly formulated. In the contrary case, that is, or truncated
syllogism.
when one of the premisses is not expressed, the syllogism is
incomplete or truncated, and is called an
ENTHYMEME.2

Example : Peter is a man, therefore he is mortal.3

The enthymeme is much more frequently used in
current language—scientific as well as common—than
is the complete syllogism.

§ 3. Oblique Syllogisms
93. BY REASON OF THE REMOTE MATTER (THE TERMS) OF

1 A summary of this theory may be found in Chap. XII of Le Systeme d’Aristote

by Hamelin. It is also extremely well presented in the Summa totius logicae,
attributed to St. Thomas (opuscula 48, rom. ed.).
2 Aristotle uses the word enthymeme (&/0i'//t7j/*a) in an altogether different
sense—in the sense of “ rhetorical syllogism proceeding from probable pre¬
misses and from examples.” Cf. Anal. Pr., II, 27, 70 a, 10 ; Rhetor. I, 1, 1355
a, 6.
3 Or, for example, in the conditional syllogism : “ The world exists,
therefore God exists ”—the Major is understood : “ If the world exists, God
exists.”
 250 LOGIC

Direct and THE SYLLOGISM CONSIDERED ACCORDINGLY AS THE TERMS ARE

syllogisms, direct or oblique—the syllogism is either

DIRECT
or
OBLIQUE

In the latter case one of the syllogistic terms itself, t, T or M,

is in an oblique case, that is to say that the term is not itself
the subject or predicate of the proposition wherein it
figures, but that it determines this subject or predicate
according to a certain relation which it has to it. For this reason
the word signifying this term is in an oblique case in Latin,
and is preceded in English by a preposition or some sign
indicating a relation. Example :

M T
Christ is God
t M
but Mary is the Mother of Christ,
t T
therefore Mary is the Mother of God.

The M, direct in the Major, is oblique in the Minor, and

the T, direct in the Major, is oblique in the Conclusion. 1

M T
Every son of my father is my brother,
t T
but Paul is my father,
t T
therefore every son of Paul is my brother.

The M, oblique in the Major, is direct in the Minor, and

the t, direct in the Minor, is oblique in the Conclusion.
The same is true in the following syllogism :

1 We may also say by analogy that a conditional syllogism, such as : “If Peter
is a martyr he is a saint, but it is probable that Peter is a martyr, therefore it
is probable that Peter is a saint ” is an oblique syllogism.
 REASONING
251
M
*
,- -,
Everything greater than greater than B is
T
>--*-s

greater than B
t M
/-*--

but A is greater than B

t T

therefore everything greater than A is greater than B.

(a) Certain difficulties concerning the “ Logic of
Relation ” which beset logicians even as well informed
as Lachelier,1 and which we shall examine in Major Logic,
are easily solved by taking into consideration oblique
syllogisms. Thus it is very certain that a formula such as
A>B
B>C
Therefore A>C
does not at all represent a true syllogism, for the syllogism

M T
- _ ,-*-s
B is greater than C
t M
- ,-*-\
but A is greater than B
t T
— _ ,-«-s
therefore A is greater than C
is incorrect and is true only by accident or by reason of
its matter, for the middle term is not the same in the
Major as it is in the Minor (“B” in one, “greater than
B ” in the other). The fact is that, far from being related
to an autonomous type of proposition and reasoning,
and positing a properly logical question, the formula
under consideration is nothing but an algebraic abbre¬
viation of discourse, such as is often met with in everyday
language. The practical use of the relation “ is greater
than ” as a copula is legitimate only because a pseudo¬
syllogism of this kind (the Stoics called it Aoyo? a/xedoSco ?
1 Cf. J. Lachelier, Etudes stir le Syllogisme, Paris, 1907.
252 LOGIC

7Tepaivojv) implies or supposes the following syllogisms which

are true syllogisms and into which it may easily be resolved.

(I) Everything greater than

M
>
r '

greater than C is
T
,-■*•■ ■■--N

greater than C
t T
- ,-*-V
But B is greater than C
t

Therefore everything greater than B is

T
,-*-V
greater than C.

(II) Everything greater than B is greater than C,

but A is greater than B,
therefore A is greater than C.
Both of these syllogisms are perfectly correct, but the
first one is an oblique syllogism.
(b) It is always possible to transform an oblique
syllogism into a direct syllogism. For example—using
the examples given above, we have : “ The Mother of
Christ is the Mother of God, but Mary is the Mother of
Christ, therefore, etc.” “ Every son of my father is my
brother, but every son of Paul is a son of my father,
therefore, etc.” “ Everything greater than greater than B
is greater than B, but everything greater than A is greater
than greater than B, therefore everything greater than A
is greater than B.” But in effecting this transformation
something has been changed in the logical process of the
thought ; from the point of view of the movement of
reason itself, as Leibnitz has remarked (Nouveaux Essais,
livre IV, Chap. XVII, § 4), the oblique syllogism con¬
stitutes a distinct manner of procedure. Nevertheless,
the very fact that it is reducible to the direct syllogism
shows that Leibnitz was wrong in calling it an “ asyl-
logistic ” sequence ; it is a true syllogism founded essen-
 REASONING 253

tially upon the identity of two terms with a same third

term (for one of the two terms and the third is once
identically modified).

§ 4. Compound Syllogisms

94. BY REASON OF THE SIMPLICITY OR THE COMPLEXITY

of the argumentation—the syllogism is either simple or

compound (i.e.j made up of several implicitly or explicitly
formulated syllogisms). There are four kinds of compound
syllogisms :
(1) the epicheirema 1 in which one premise or the The
Epicheiretva
other, or even both, are conjoined with their proof (causal or syllogism
with a
propositions). Example : causal
premise.

Every martyr is a saint because every martyr possesses

heroic charity,
but Peter is a martyr,
therefore Peter is a saint.

The Major is itself resolvable into a complete syllogism :

“ Every man possessing heroic charity is a saint, but every
martyr possesses heroic charity, therefore every martyr
is a saint.”
(2) the polysyllogism which links together several The
Polysyllo¬
syllogisms in such a way that the conclusion of one serves gism, in
which the
as a premise of the next. conclusion
of one
serves as a
premise of
Bar Every spiritual substance is a simple substance, the next.
ba but the human soul is a spiritual substance,
ra therefore it is a simple substance, ba
but every simple substance is incorruptible, Bar
la therefore the human soul is incorruptible ; ra
ce but that which is incorruptible cannot cease being,
rent therefore the human soul cannot cease being.1 2

1 Aristotle used the word epicheireme (iiriyflp-q/na) in an altogether different

sense, to mean a “ dialectical syllogism ” proceeding from probable proposi¬
tions and ordained to invention, not demonstration Cf. Topic., VIII, 2,
162 a, 15.
2 The conditional syllogism would be : “ If the human soul is a spiritual
substance it is a simple substance, but it is a spiritual substance, therefore it
is a simple substance ; but if it is a simple substance it is incorruptible, there¬
fore it is incorruptible ; but if it is incorruptible it cannot cease being, there¬
fore it cannot cease being.”
 254 LOGIC

The Sorites,
in which the
(3) the sorites,1 which links several propositions
t is united
to the T by
together in such a way that the S. of the first becomes the
a series of
subordinate
Pr. of the second, and the Pr. of the second the S. of the
in’s.
third, and so on, until a conclusion is reached which unites
the S. of the first with the Pr. of the last.
The Sorites implicitly contains several syllogisms (the same
number as the premisses less one). Cicero justly called it
the most deceptive of arguments, and it is, in truth, the one
into which error may most easily creep.

t M1
Peter is a man
M1 M2
Every man is an animal
M2 M3 * 5
Every animal is endowed with instincts
M3 T
Every being endowed with instincts has spontaneous
reactions,
t T
Therefore Peter has spontaneous reactions.2

This is the Aristotelian sorites. The logician, Goclenius,3

gave his name to another type of sorites (the Goclenian
sorites) in which the Conclusion unites the S. of the last
proposition to the Pr. of the first.

M1 T
Every being endowed with instincts has spontaneous
reactions,
M2 M1
Every animal is endowed with instincts
M3 M2
Every man is an animal

1 Aristotle does not use the word sorites (auprlr-qs), but he indicates this
type of reasoning in the Anal. Pr. I (41 a 18 and 25 (42 b 1) ).
2 The conditional syllogism would be :
If Peter is a man he is an animal.
If he is an animal he is endowed with instincts.
If he is endowed with instincts he has spontaneous reactions.
But Peter is a man, therefore he has spontaneous reactions.
5 The sorites in question was proposed in his Isagoge in Organum Aristotelis
(Frankfort, 1598).
 REASONING 255
t M3
Peter is a man
t T
Therefore Peter has spontaneous reactions.1
In the Aristotelian sorites the series of M’s has an increasing
extension, whereas in the Goclenian sorites the series has a
decreasing extension.
(4) the dilemma, the “ two-horned ” or “ two-edged ”
argument (syllogismus cornutns), presents in the antecedent
a disjunction of such a kind that whether one or the other
of its members be posited, the same conclusion follows.
The dilemma is most frequently constructed according
to the conditional type. For example if a man had, through
his own fault, so vitiated his conscience that it commanded
him to do a crime, we could reason that :
Either this man will commit this crime or he will not.
If he does commit it he will act against eternal law
(and he will be guilty).
If he does not commit it he will act against his con¬
science (and he will be guilty).
Therefore whether or not he commits it he will be guilty.
Or again, the famous dilemma of Tertullian against the The
Dilemma
decree of Trajan : states a
disjunction
such that
The Christians are either guilty or innocent. the same
conclusion
If they are guilty why should it be forbidden to search follows in
either
for them ? (The decree is unjust.) case.
If they are innocent why should they be punished ?
(The decree is unjust.)
In either event the decree is unjust.
The dilemma may also be constructed in the categorical type :
Every just man needs grace in order to persevere,
Every sinner needs grace in order to be converted.
But every man is either just or a sinner,
Therefore every man needs grace.

1 The conditional syllogism would be :

If Peter is endowed with instincts he has spontaneous reactions.
If he is an animal he is endowed with instincts.
If he is a man he is an animal.
But he is a man, therefore he has spontaneous reactions.
256 LOGIC

(a) Rules for the dilemma : (1) The disjunction must

be complete. Because this rule is so easily broken this
form of reasoning lends itself very readily to sophisms.
For example in the following syllogism : Every philos¬
opher is an “ innatist ” or a sensist ; if he is an “ inna-
tist,” he falls into idealism, if he is a sensist, he falls into
materialism ; in either event error cannot be avoided ;
the disjunction is not complete. The philosophers in the
Aristotelian tradition are neither innatists nor sensists.
(2) The partial consequent inferred by each member
must follow legitimately. The dilemma of the Caliph
Omar, for example, violates this rule :
The books in the library of Alexandria are either
in conformity or not in conformity with the Koran.
In the first case they are superfluous (and should
be burnt).
In the second case they are pernicious (and should
be burnt).
Therefore in either case they should be burnt.
(3) The common conclusion declared to be inferred
by one or the other of the members must follow exclu¬
sively, that is, it must be the only one that can be drawn.
If not, the dilemma can be retorted,1 as in the familiar
example :
You will conduct public affairs either honestly or
dishonestly.
If you conduct them honestly you will please God
(1and it will be to your advantage to go into politics).
If you conduct them dishonestly you will please men
(and it will be to your advantage to go into politics).
Therefore in both cases it will be to your advantage
to go into politics.
To this argument it may be retorted :
If you conduct them honestly you will displease men.
If you conduct them dishonestly you will displease God.
Therefore in either event it will not be to your
advantage to go into politics.
1 To retort an argument is to draw the opposite conclusion from one of its
own premisses.
 REASONING 257

(b) Do not confuse the disjunctive syllogism with the

dilemma, as is so frequently done. In the dilemma the
conclusion follows from both of the members of the dis¬
junction. In the disjunctive syllogism, on the contrary,
one of the members of the disjunction is excluded.
Orators very often confuse the two, and when they say
that they “ have their adversary in a dilemma ” they are
usually talking about a disjunctive syllogism. “ How,
gentleman, shall the Prime Minister escape this dilemma ?
either he has been deceived by his officials and should
therefore act immediately, or else he has known what
was going on and should himself be put under suspicion.
But he assures us that his officials have not deceived him,
he protects his minions ! Therefore, etc.”

(.c) exercises. (1) Find examples of all the different

types of syllogism enumerated in this section.
(2) To which category of syllogisms do the following
reasonings belong :
“ Qui prudens est, et temperans est ; qui temperans
est, et constans est ; qui constans est, et imperturbatus
est ; qui imperturbatus est, sine tristitia est ; qui sine
tristitia est, beatus est ; ergo prudens beatus est, et
prudentia ad beatam vitam satis est ” (Seneca, Epist. 85).
You are a liar, therefore you are a coward.
Every flatterer lives at the expense of those who listen
to him, but every man who lives at the expense of another
is a parasite, therefore every flatterer is a parasite, but
every parasite is unable to support himself, therefore
every flatterer is unable to support himself, but every
man who is unable to support himself is unfortunate,
therefore every flatterer is unfortunate.
Every rational creature is free by the very fact that he
is endowed with intelligence, but man is a rational
creature, therefore he is free.
Every mammal is viviparous, therefore the bat is
mammiferous.
Montaigne’s fox reasons in the following way (Essays,
II, 12) : “This stream is noisy, that which is noisy
moves, that which moves is not frozen, that which is not
 258 LOGIC

frozen is liquid, that which is liquid gives way under a

weight, therefore this river will not bear me.”
Bias reasoned in this way : “Ifyou marry, you marry
either a beautiful woman or an ugly one. If she is beautiful
you will be tortured by jealousy, if she is ugly you will
not be able to stand her, therefore you should not marry.”

SECTION 3. INDUCTION

A. INDUCTIVE REASONING

95. notion of induction. As we have already indicated,

Induction is a type of reasoning that differs essentially from
the syllogism. This difference has its root in the very nature
of our mind, which cannot attain to truth except it base
itself upon two kinds of essentially different principles :
(1) upon sense data and singular facts known through
sense experience—material principle of all our knowledge
{from which all our knowledge is derived) ;
Introduc¬ (2) upon self-evident self-known intelligible truths—
tion is a
reasoning in formal principles of all our knowledge (“ first principles ” by
which we
infer a which all our knowledge is demonstrated).1
universal
truth from To show how a conclusion derives from previously known
a sufficient
enumera¬ universal truths, or in the terminology of the ancients, to
tion of
singular or “ resolve ” a conclusion into the intelligible truths upon
partial
facts. which it depends (and finally into the first self-evident
truths) is to proceed by the deductive or syllogistic method
{resolutio formalis). To show how a conclusion is disengaged,
so to speak, from sense experience, in other words, to resolve
a conclusion into the facts from which our mind extracts
it as from a matter {resolutio materialis) is to proceed by the
inductive method. In the syllogism we remain upon the
intelligible plane, we move from one point of this plane to
another, as a submarine that navigates horizontally upon
the surface of the ocean. By induction we attain to the
intelligible plane, we move from the sensible plane to the
intelligible plane, as a submarine that navigates vertically
upwards from below.

1 See above, No. 66.

 REASONING 259
It is in this sense that Aristotle and St. Thomas teach
that we have but two means of acquiring knowledge :
viz., the syllogism, which proceeds from universal truths,
and induction which proceeds from singular data ; for
all our knowledge depends formally upon first self-evident
truths, and derives its origin materially from the singular
and concrete reality perceived by the senses.
Thus we may define induction as :
an argumentation in which the mind infers an universal truth
from sufficiently enumerated singular cases ;
“ a singularibus sufficientes enumeratio ad universale
progressio.”
This amount of water boils at ioo°, and so does this
amount, and this other, and this other also . . . , therefore
water boils at ioo°. Note that, in virtue of the same ascen¬
sional process, induction goes not only from individuals to
the universal whole of which they are the subjective parts,
but also from all subjective parts whatever they may be
to their universal whole. For example : copper conducts
electricity, and gold, iron, zinc and silver do also. . . .
Therefore metal (that is, every metal) conducts electricity.
Like many other excellent definitions formulated by the
ancients, the definition of induction given above is a defini¬
tion according to its principal or absolutely first function.
The following definition is broader but less typical : an
argumentation in which we ascend to a universal truth
from a sufficient enumeration of partial data.
96. structure of induction. (1) Because the syllogism
remains upon the plane of the universal, upon the plane of
concepts as such, the entire force of syllogistic argumenta¬
tion resides in the connection between terms or concepts.
To say syllogism is equivalent to saying the identity of two
terms or concepts with a same third term.
M T
Everything that subsists immaterially is indestructible,
t M
But the human soul subsists immaterially,
t T
Therefore the human soul is indestructible.
26o LOGIC

Induction, on the contrary, moves from the plane of the

concrete singular to the plane of ideas, the plane of the
universal; the whole force of inductive argumentation will
reside then in the connection between individuals and the
universal concept. To say induction is equivalent to saying
the conformity of two concepts with one same series of suffi¬
ciently ENUMERATED INDIVIDUALS.
The structure of inductive argumentation is therefore
evident ; to formulate it suitably we should say, for example :

This fossil equidae

and this one T
and that one has a very distinctive dentition.
and this other

And the universal subject

which represents 1
this fossil equidae
and this one
and that one
is the hipparion.
and this other
in relation to the predi¬
cate “ having a very dis¬
tinctive dentition.”

t T
Therefore the hipparion has a very distinctive dentition.

{This amount of water a1 T

and this amount a2
fboils at iooc
and this amount a3
And the universal subject
which represents

and a2
and a3 is water
in relation to the predicate
“ which boils at 100° ”

1 In more precise terms : the universal subject which stands for these
(individuals).
 REASONING 26l
t T
Therefore water boils at ioo°

copper
and iron
M - and gold T
is a conductor of electricity
and silver
and zinc

and the universal subject

which represents
copper
and iron
t
- and gold
is metal
and silver
and zinc
in relation to the predicate
“conductor of electricity”

t T_
Therefore metal is a conductor of electricity.

We have taken apart the logical mechanism of inductive

inference in this way in order to make clear the ascension
which the mind effects from singular terms to the universal
quiddity.
As a matter of fact in everyday language, induction
is formulated in a much simpler manner. We would say,
for example : this hipparion molar, and this one (found
elsewhere) and that one, and that one, are very dis¬
tinctive, therefore the hipparion has a very distinctive
dentition. This amount of water boils at ioo°, and this
one, and this one likewise, therefore water boils at ioo° ;
copper, iron, gold, silver, zinc are conductors of elec¬
tricity, and copper, iron, gold, silver, zinc, etc., are metals,
therefore metals are conductors of electricity. But the
reason for this is precisely that the passage to the universal,
essential to inductive inference, is not verbally formulated
in speech, because it is not one of the materials of reasoning
(as are the terms of a syllogism), it is an operation performed
and exercised by the mind at the moment in which it passes
 262 LOGIC

from the Major to the Minor, an operation which it belongs

to logical reflection alone to signify in a formula. The
task of the mind in induction is not to signify induction
but to effect it. This observation also explains why
inductive reasoning is verbally expressed in a less invari¬
able and fixed fashion than is syllogistic reasoning.

(2) Let us compare induction and the syllogism by means

of any two examples, such as :

Induction Syllogism
,-*->
M T M T
major Peter and James Every rational
and Paul and John is endowed being is endowed
with speech. with speech.
And the universal
which is realized t M
minor in : But man is a rational
J Peter and James being
1 and Paul and John is man
t t T
con- Therefore man is endowed Therefore man is endowed
clusion with speech with speech.

The difference is immediately apparent : in both cases

the conclusion expresses a general truth and unites two
concepts to each other. But in the syllogism the Major
Induction expresses the conformity between a concept (Pr. : endowed
passes
from the with speech) and another concept (S. : rational oeing) ; in
sensible to
the intel¬ induction, on the contrary, the Major expresses the con¬
ligible
plane. The formity between a concept (Pr. : endowed with speech) and
mean in
induction a series of individuals taken one by one (Peter, James,
is not a
universal Paul, John).
term, but an
enumeration In the syllogism the Minor expresses the conformity
of
individuals between a concept (Pr. : rational being) and another concept
or of parts.
(S. : man) : in induction, on the contrary, the Minor
expresses the conformity between a concept (Pr. : man)
and this same concept taken in relation to the individuals
which are its parts (S. : the universal which is realized in
Peter, James, Paul, John, etc.). Further, in the Minor of
the syllogism, the predicate-term (rational being) is taken
particularly, in accordance with the ordinary rule of
affirmative propositions. In the Minor of the induction,
on the contrary, the predicate-term (man)—which is said,
 REASONING 263

not of each individual, Peter, James, Paul, John, etc.,1

but of the universal subject itself of which Peter, James,
Paul, John, etc., are the subjective parts 2—is taken neither
particularly nor universally, since it is not considered
according to the manner in which it passes to the individuals
in the real. It is taken, as is the subject-term itself, according
to the unity which it has in the mind. This Minor does
not indeed express the existence of a predicate in the com¬
prehension of a subject, but expresses the ascension that the
mind makes from the individuals to the universal term
which represents them.
To say this briefly in another way, in induction there is no
middle term. That which takes the place of the middle term,
which is the mean of argumentation, is not a term or a concept,
but an ENUMERATION OF INDIVIDUALS OR OF PARTS.3 In the
Major these individuals are taken one by one ; in the Minor
they are taken in the unity of the universal concept which
represents them.

SCHEMATIC STRUCTURE OF THE SYLLOGISM AND OF INDUCTION

INDUCTION SYLLOGISM
A-

a1 j
and a2 C is B
•is B
and a3
and a4 >
And that which, in rela-'
tion to B, has for subjec¬
tive parts a1 ►is the universal A. But A is C
and a2
and a3
and a1
Therefore A is B Therefore A is B

1 As was the case for the Pr. of the Major (endowed with speech) which is
said of each individual or of each part distributively.
* In this case the suppositio is simplex. See above, No. 27.
3 Aristode said {Anal. Prior., II, 23) in this sense, that the term which serves
as die mean uniting the two extremes in the syllogism is, in induction, the subject
of which an extreme is proven by means of a third thing (the enumeration of
individuals or parts).
induction : The monkey, the cat, the hedgehog, the ox, the rat are vivi-
parous ; and who says monkey, hedgehog, ox, rat . . . says mammal ;
therefore every mammal is viviparous.
syllogism : Every mammal is viviparous ; but the bat is a mammal ; there¬
fore the bat is viviparous.
 264 LOGIC

Such is the essential and absolutely irreducible difference

which distinguishes the syllogism and induction.
Whence this consequence : whereas the syllogism or
deductive reasoning proceeds, at least from the pure point
of view of logical relations, from a more universal truth to
a less universal truth contained in the first, induction
proceeds from the less universal to the more universal,
from the parts to the whole.
*(3) Such is the property generally designated as differ¬
entiating induction from the syllogism. But there are certain
pitfalls to be avoided. Induction proceeds from the singular {or
from the particular) : this is true if we consider the first point
of departure of induction, and thus consider its principal
function and characteristic movement : ascensional movement
going from the parts to the whole. But contraries belong
to the same genus, as black and white to the genus colour.
Therefore the movement of descent, by which the mind goes
from a universal to its subjective parts, and to the singular
data of experience, must also belong to the inductive process.
To return to the simile we used above, the mind in induc¬
tive reasoning is as a submarine (whose first point of depar¬
ture is the bottom, not the surface of the ocean). Since it
can raise itself from the bottom to the surface, it can also
descend again from the surface to the bottom, and this
coming and going constitutes for it the same kind of move¬
ment. This point did not escape the sagacity of the scholastic
logicians, who made of the ascensus and descensus two par¬
ticular cases of the same inductive process.1
ascends Inductive reasoning is a reversible mechanism because,
pans to* as we pointed out above, its Minor always affirms the
and descends identity of a universal whole considered in itself (“ metal ” for
whoie^to example), and of the same universal considered in relation to
the parts. jts parjs . consequently this Minor is a convertible proposition.
Iron, and copper, and gold, and silver, each conduct
electricity.
And to say iron, and copper, and gold, and silver,
is to say metal.
Therefore metal conducts electricity.
1 Cf. John of St. Thomas, Log., I, P. Sum., lib. Ill, Cap. II, p. 52. The
ancients had analysed and formulated in detail the rules of the ascensus and
descensus. Cf. John of St. Thomas, op. cit., pp. 53—54.
 REASONING 265

The mind moved itself from the particular to the universal :

ascensus. Now, considering the inverse procedure :
Metal conducts electricity.
To say metal is to say iron, and copper, and gold, and
silver, etc.
Therefore iron conducts electricity.
Here the mind moved itself from the universal to the par¬
ticular, from the whole to the part as such : descensus.1 It proceeds
in virtue of
the con¬
If the mean (“ nerf ”—the heart, core) of the argumenta¬ nection of
the parts
tion were metal taken as the middle term which identifies with the
universal
the other terms with each other (every metal conducts elec¬ whole,

tricity, but iron is a metal, therefore) this reasoning would

be a syllogism. But as formulated and thought here, the
mean of the argumentation is metal taken as a superior
universal dividing itself into its subjective parts, and the reason¬
ing is an inductive descensus. The difference may appear
to be a subtle one because it belongs to the entirely
formal order, but it is nevertheless of cardinal importance.
In the syllogism it is impossible to reverse the direction
of the movement in this way. The syllogistic mechanism
is not reversible. Indeed, in virtue of its structure, syllogistic
argumentation proceeds necessarily from the principle
to the conclusion, and therefore, at least as to logical rela¬
tions, from a more universal truth to a less universal truth
contained in the first.
But we must be at great pains to remember that this
property of the syllogism, which is a consequence of its essen¬
tial structure (an argumentation founded upon the con¬
nection of terms or concepts) concerns the universality of
a truth (or connection of concepts) in relation to another
truth from the precise point of view of the logical relations
maintained by the connected terms or concepts—and does not
concern, from the point of view of the content of the concepts,
the universality of a concept in relation to the subjective
parts which it contains. If we reason in Darii for example :
Every man is rational,
but some substance is a man,
therefore some substance is rational,
1 See above, No. 27 (3), A, 6, inset, and No. 81 (3).
 266 LOGIC

the concept substance is evidently not a subjective part of

the concept man.
whereas the
syllogism We have already given considerable attention to this
proceeds in
virtue of
point (No. 81) : the essential constitution of the syllogism
the con¬
nection does not consist in proceeding from a universal term to its
between
terms and subjective parts, but in proceeding in virtue of the connection
concepts.
between terms or concepts, that is, in proceeding from a truth
(principle) to a truth (conclusion) which, from the point of
view of logical function, is always less universal than the
first, but which may in fact, considering the content of the
propositions, be equally universal. Induction, on the contrary,
considers the universal concept, not in its logical connection
with other universal concepts, but in its relation with the
subjective parts which are to it as matter.

(a) It is evident from the foregoing that a same singular

conclusion, for example : Peter is mortal, may be inferred
either in virtue of a syllogism, or in virtue of an inductive
descensus. In saying :

Every man is mortal,

but Peter is a man,
therefore Peter is mortal,

we construct a syllogism, we base ourselves upon the

connection of three terms or concepts : Mortal, Peter,
Man, and we draw our conclusion not because Peter is a
subjective part of Man, but because the term Peter is
identified with another term by means of the term Man.
In saying :

Man is mortal,
and to say man is to say Peter, and Paul and James,
etc.,
therefore Peter is mortal,

our method of inference, the core of our reasoning is

altogether different ; we make an inductive descensus, we
base ourselves upon the identity of the universal whole
“ man ” considered in itself with this same whole con¬
sidered in relation to its parts, and we draw our con¬
clusion because Peter is a subjective part of man.
 REASONING 267

Or again, a conclusion such as : “ iron conducts

electricity ” may be inferred either in virtue of an induc¬
tive ascensus, starting from actual facts : “ this piece of
iron, and this one, and that one, each conduct elec¬
tricity,” or in virtue of an inductive descensus, starting
from the universal “ metal,” for example : “ metal
conducts electricity, and to say metal is to say iron, and
silver, and copper, etc.,” or in virtue of a syllogism
starting from the same universal “ metal ” but proceed¬
ing by the force of an altogether different kind of infer¬
ence : “ every metal conducts electricity, but iron is a
metal, therefore, etc.”
{b) It should now be apparent how great is the too
frequently committed blunder of representing the opposi¬
tion of the syllogism and induction as the simple opposi¬
tion of two movements proceeding in contrary directions
on the same road. Such a representation betrays a
complete misunderstanding of the true nature of this
opposition and even risks confusing the syllogism with
inductive descensus. The opposition between the syllogism
and induction is much deeper : it is a fundamental
opposition. The very paths which they pursue are
different. One moves entirely upon the intelligible
plane ; the other leads from the plane of sense experience
to the intelligible plane, from the plane of the particular
or the singular to the plane of the universal (or inversely).
The syllogism is based entirely upon the connection of
two terms with a same third term (the middle term).
Induction replaces the middle term by an enumeration
of parts and is entirely based upon the connection of
individuals or of parts with the universal whole.

Because certain authors have not understood the nature

of induction, they have thought that it could be reduced
to the syllogism.
Thus the disciples of Wolff considered induction as an
enthymeme whose Major : “ that which is attributable to
all the individuals is attributable to the universal which
contains them,” is unexpressed. But this is contrary to all
probability, for so general an axiom could never be the
 268 LOGIC

Major in any particular enthymeme, any more than the

supreme principle of the syllogism could be the Major in
any particular syllogism.
/"absolutely Many other modern logicians, among whom is Lachelier,1
iothe°ible reduce induction to a syllogism of the third figure. But
syllogism. enthymeme or syllogism of the third figure, the damage
remains the same ; to attempt to reduce induction to the
syllogism is to reduce it to nothing, to purely and simply
destroy it. For if induction were a kind of syllogism, it
would be no more (except in those cases in which the
enumeration of parts is actually complete) than an invalid
sequence or a defective reasoning, and the only thing to do would
be to rule it out of Logic, as several logisticians have done.2
For the essential law of the validity of the syllogism, namely
the identity of the M in the two premisses, is obviously
violated when I say :

M
W
r >

c1, and c2, and c3 is B

M
f " 1 1 A ->

but C1, C2, C3, and all the Cn resembling them together
form all A.

Therefore all A is B.

This is a defective syllogism, which has only the material

appearance of induction and has lost its essence and all its
force.3

1 Cf. Lachelier, Etudes sur le Syllogisme, pp. 37-38. Having posited the two
premisses of a syllogism in Darapti : the body A attracts iron, but the body A
is a magnet, “ we should conclude only that, viformae : therefore some magnet
attracts iron,” writes Lachelier. “ But since we have grounds for believing that
the body A acts in virtue of a general property of magnets, we conclude,
vi materiae : therefore every magnet attracts iron.” This is equivalent to admit¬
ting that this so-called syllogism in Darapti is merely a formally invalid sequence.
2 Cf. Louis Rougier, La Structure des theories deductives, pp. 16 sqq.
3 “ The matter of induction may indeed be put into a syllogism but its
form may not : it is essentially opposed to the true syllogism by the absence
of the middle term by which the syllogism is characterized ; no conversion
could ever obliterate this difference or cause it to disappear. Inductio in
syllogismum reducitur materialiter et nonformaliter, ita quod forma inductionis reducatur in
formam syllogismi” (Alb. Magn.,Prior., 1, II, tract. VII, Cap. IV). “ Induction
proves that a characteristic belongs to a common subject by producing corre¬
sponding singular phenomena. That is the logical processus proper to it.
From the repetition of an occurrence under the same conditions, it concludes
 REASONING 269

The logicians of whom we are speaking have not suc¬

ceeded in escaping the fascination of the syllogism and in
grasping the quid proprium of inductive reasoning. Whether
we consider its structure, the nature of inference of which it
admits or its supreme principle (see below), induction in
every case appears as absolutely irreducible to the syllogism.
*(4) It is a fundamental error and, in truth, destructive
of all Logic, to interpret induction—as many modern
authors do—from the point of view of the parts of a col¬
lective whole or from the point of view of a simple collection ;
that is to regard inductive reasoning as consisting in making
a predicate verified of some members of a certain collec¬
tion pass either to an entire collection of individuals taken as
To interpret
such, or to all the individuals of a collection taken purely and induction
from the
simply qua individuals. In the first case, the induction would point of
view of a
be an obviously defective process (this soldier has an pure col¬
lection of
immortal soul, and this one, and that one, therefore the individuals
is to
regiment has an immortal soul).1 In the second case the induc¬ destroy it.
tion would be legitimate only on the supposition that the
enumeration were complete, but then (and always when
induction is interpreted from the point of view of a pure
collection of individuals) there would be no more in the con¬
clusion than there is in the enumeration itself, and the
induction would be merely useless tautology. To say : “Joseph
was sold by Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judas, Issachar, Zabulon,
Dan, Nepthali, Gad and Aser,” or to say : “Joseph was
sold by his brothers,” to say “ Peter, John, James, Andrew,
Philip, Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew, James the Minor,
Simon, Jude, Matthias were in the Cenacle ” or to say
“ All the apostles were in the Cenacle,” is purely and

to a general fact. The syllogism proceeds altogether differently ; it proves

that a subject and predicate are in accordance with each other because they
are both in accord with a same third term. This is why the latter is always
considered as the mean, the instrument, used to unite, in the conclusion, the
two terms that are separated in the premisses. Briefly, the middle term provides
both the fact and the cause of their accord. The opposition between these
two procedures could not be more complete : syllogismo proprie dicto opponitur
inductio ” (Alb. Mag., op. tit., i, II, tract. VII, Cap. IV), T. Richard, Philos-
ophie du Raisonnement dans la Science, pp. 298-299.—When Aristotle speaks of
the inductive syllogism {Anal. Pr., II, 23, 68 b 15), he uses the word syllogism in
the general sense of reasoning (inasmuch as reasoning taken in general is divided
into induction and the syllogism properly so-called).
1 See above, No. 17.
 270 LOGIC

simply to say the same thing, because in these examples,

the mind remains upon the plane of facts without raising
itself any higher, and consequently ends up in universal
propositions which—by reason of their matter and by
exception—signify absolutely nothing except a fact common
to all the individuals of a collection taken as individuals.1
We make use of the exterior appearance of induction in
such cases, saying, for example : “ Peter, John, James,
etc. . . . were in the Cenacle, therefore all the apostles
So-called were in the Cenacle,” to make evident, as by counting on
formal
induction. one’s fingers, a particular truth which is exactly the same in
both propositions. But (as in the expository syllogism)
there is no inference, no true reasoning here. And yet this
is what several modern logicians term formal induction;
this is the purely verbal and sterile form which they have
the naivete to regard as the only induction known to the
ancients, although the latter never even thought of con¬
sidering it in their theory of induction.
Induction In truth, as we have already remarked, the essential role
must be
interpreted in the reasoning is played, not by the individuals of a col¬
from the
point of lection taken qua individuals, but by the universal nature
view of the
universal communicable to each of them (either as middle term in
nature
realized the syllogism, or as subject of the conclusion in the induc¬
in
individuals. tion). It is not from the point of view of the parts of a
collective whole nor from the point of view of a simple col¬
lection, but from the point of view of a distributive whole
or of a universal properly so-called that we must consider
induction if we would understand it. For induction consists
in attributing to an intelligible universal, disengaged, so to
speak, by abstraction, a predicate verified of some of the
individuals or some of the parts in which this universal is
realized. This operation is legitimate when the enumera¬
tion of individuals is sufficient, and it really furthers know¬
ledge. For to know that every metal conducts electricity

1 See above, No. 51 C. The examples used here to show what becomes of
induction when it is interpretedjrom the point of view of a pure collection of individuals,
correspond to those particular cases of complete induction in which, by reason of
the matter, the conclusion expresses nothing except a fact common to the
individuals of a collection taken as individuals (so-called “ formal ” induc¬
tion). True complete induction is not a tautology, but valid reasoning. See
below. No. 99.
 REASONING 271

is not the same thing as to know that silver, and copper,

etc., are conductors of electricity ; it is to know that there
is some necessary connection (even though we do not indeed
perceive it in itself) between this property and the nature
of metal—it is to possess—however obscurely and imper¬
fectly it is nevertheless to possess—a truth de jure.
Induction (induction by incomplete enumeration of
which we are speaking here) 1 does not make us pass from
some to all {tous)—to all the individuals of a collection
taken as individuals—but indeed from some to every
{tout)—to the whole object of a universal concept (which we
may call the sphere of intelligible necessities) realized in
each individual. For this reason, if the logician wishes to
avoid ambiguity, he must formulate his examples of induc¬
tion by saying : “ copper, silver, etc. . . . conducts elec¬
tricity, therefore every metal (or better still metal) conducts
electricity ” and not by saying : “all metals conduct
electricity ” ; for this oral expression signifies the individuals
of a collection before signifying the universal nature of which
they partake.2 Everyday language incurs the risk of con¬
fusion in employing the expression “ all the ” rather than
“ every,” and making it signify more or less obscurely,
through the individuals which it primarily presents, the
universal nature itself which contains the reason for the
attribution of a same predicate to each of these individuals.
(A fact which the nominalistic logicians have not the good
fortune to perceive.) If, for example, I think back upon all
the saints whose lives I have read, and arrive at the con¬
clusion, “ all the saints have been contemplatives,” I seem
to be announcing nothing but a general fact, but I am
already signifying, already insinuating albeit in the most
moderate and cautious manner, a certain truth de jure
concerning some law that binds together sanctity and con¬
templation, and which would be much more clearly affirmed
in a formula such as : “ every saint is a contemplative.”
*97. THE NATURE OF INDUCTIVE INFERENCE. In the Case
of induction, as in that of the syllogism, we must distinguish
very carefully between inference properly so-called {con-

1 For induction by complete enumeration, see below, No. 99.

3 See above, No 51 c.
 272 LOGIC

Induction sequentia) which is concerned solely with the form of the

considered
as an reasoning, and the argument or proof, which takes its
argument
ordinarily matter into account as well. Induction has the double
admits of a
certain function of inference and of proof.1 As we shall see in Major
zone of
probability. Logic, when considered as an argument or proof, induction
admits of a certain zone of probability (except in some
limit-cases such as those of induction by complete enumera¬
tion). For the matter of inductive reasoning is primarily
constituted, not of necessary truths, as is that of the demon¬
strative syllogism, but of experimental and sensible data.
Considering induction now as an inference, that is, solely
from the point of view of the logical relations and con¬
nections in virtue of which the mind passes from the Major
to the Conclusion, we must say that induction is a true
argumentation (vera species argumentationis) or formal sequence
(consequents formalis), but entirely distinct from the syllo¬
gistic inference, and of a kind apart. We may for this reason
call it a formal sequence properly as inductive (“ formalis induc¬
tive ”), that is, as an introduction and conduction to the universal.
For, since all the knowledge we can acquire supposes two
progressive procedures of the mind, the one introducing us
to intelligible truth, accordingly as we ascend to it starting
from the senses, the other causing us to demonstrate this
truth deductively starting from propositions already conceived
in their universality, there must indeed be two distinct
kinds of inference, one of which will lead or introduce us
to the knowledge of universal things starting from singular
facts of experience, and the other which will lead us from
previously formed universal propositions to other proposi¬
tions on the same universal plan.
Thus the first type of inference (induction) has not a
perfect form, as has the syllogism, the form of which is founded
upon the perfect connection of the two terms of the conclu¬
sion with a same third term, which is the mean of the argu¬
mentation and of itself absolutely necessitates the mind to

1 “ Adverto inductionem non solum importare rationem consequentiac

ex parte disposition^ et formae connectendi propositiones, quae est ratio
prioristica in consequentia ; sed etiam importare rationem argumenti, seu
probationis, quatenus est locus arguendi et probandi aliquam propositionem
universalem ex reductione ipsius ad suas singulares.” John of St, Thomas,
Logica, la P., Illustr., q. VIII, a. 2, p. 173. See above No. 64.
 REASONING 273

affirm the connection between these two terms. But since

it draws the universal proposition, to which it should first
ascend, from the singular data of sense experience taken
as the subjective parts of a universal whole, this first type
has everything requisite for a formal inference as inductive
but not as properly demonstrative.1 The proper end to
which it is of itself ordained is to lead up to the universal, and
the necessity it imposes upon the mind is precisely concerned,
vi formae, only with this introduction to universal proposi¬
tions in virtue of the comparison and enumeration of sin¬
gular data, and not with the production of a conviction
perfect in every point.

(a) The analogy uniting abstraction and induction is

thus apparent. Abstraction concerns the first operation of
the mind and starting from singular facts of sense experience
leads the mind to ideas and concepts (universal as objects
of simple apprehension).
Induction bears upon the third operation of the mind,
and leads the mind to universal propositions (universal as
objects of judgment) starting either from singular data of
sense experience or from previously abstracted data and
universal that are less universal than the proposition in
question (particular instances).
(.b) For Aristotle the word induction had a much more
general sense. It went far beyond—while comprising—
inductive inference or induction as we have been under¬
standing it here, and was applicable to every passage
from the plane of sensible facts to that of universal
propositions, even in the case in which, in a single sensible
example (but transcending all sense experience and
without any inductive reasoning whatsoever) the intel¬
ligence sees immediately from its very terms, a self-
evident truth such as the principle of identity or of
causality. Thus understood induction is neither an
inference properly so-called, nor an argument nor proof:
it merely leads the mind to a connection of terms whose
intelligible necessity it perceives immediately, without

1 “ In ratione inductivi, non simpliciter et evidenter probativi.” John of

St. Thomas, loc. cit., p. 175.
 274 LOGIC

reasoning. It is in this sense that Aristotle says that only

by induction may we attain to universal truths : y eVaywy^
apX'r) iciTi Kal tov KadoXov (Ethic. vAfic., VI, 3, 1139 ^ ^8) ,
dBvvarov 8e ra KadoXov decoprjaai, p.rj S’eVaywy^? [Anal. Post.,
I, 18, 81 a 40, lect. 30, St. Thomas). Cf. John of St.
Thomas, loc. cit., p. 175.

98. THE SUPREME PRINCIPLE OF INDUCTION, (i) From

If a pre¬
dicate is
what has been said it is evident that induction considered
true of
many
formally as an inference is founded upon a supreme prin¬
sufficiently
enumerated
ciple which is altogether different from that of the syllo¬
parts of a
universal
gism, and which may be formulated as follows :
subject
(that is, of What is true
several
parts which of many sufficiently enumerated parts
this
universal of a certain universal subject
really
represents
in relation
is true of this universal subject.
to this
predicate) By the very fact that it supposes a pre-requisite condi¬
it is true of
this
universal
tion which may in reality be lacking, namely that the
subject. parts be sufficiently enumerated, this principle does not
guarantee the entire certitude of the conclusions result¬
ing from the application of the inductive process ; but
it constitutes the force and the legitimacy of this process
taken in its formal function of inference.

Like the supreme principle of the syllogism, this principle

is self-evident or self-known. We say that the parts of a
certain universal whole, taken as subjects having such and
such a predicate, are sufficiently enumerated when we have
reviewed a sufficient number to know (in a certain or at
least probable manner) that they really are, in relation to
this predicate, the parts of this universal and not of another
more restricted universal—that is, to know that the universal
which represents them in relation to this predicate is really the
universal which we are considering.
Insufficient
enumera¬
If we enumerated the parts of the universal man insuffi¬
tion. ciently in relation to a predicate, such as “ yellow skinned ”
or “ white skinned,” considering only Chinamen, for
example, we might believe that the latter are represented,
in relation to the predicate “ yellow skinned ” by this
universal man. (Lao-Tsen is yellow skinned, and Whong-fu
 REASONING 275
Tsen likewise and Tchou-hi likewise . . . , therefore man
is yellow skinned.) But if we sufficiently enumerate the parts
of this universal, we see that this is not so (for this French¬
man is also a man, and this negro is too), and that Lao-
Tsen, Whong-fu Tsen, Tchou-hi, etc., are but (in relation
to the predicate “ yellow skinned ”) the parts of a more
restricted universal, such as “ man of the yellow race.”
In other words, although the universal man is indeed
realized in Lao-Tsen, Whong-fu Tsen, Tchou-hi, etc., it is
not the universal that represents these individuals in relation
to the predicate “ yellow skinned.” The one to do this would
be the more restricted universal “ man of the yellow race.”
Therefore, in saying “ the sufficiently enumerated parts of a
universal whole,” we suppose by hypothesis that, in rela¬
tion to this predicate, the parts in question are really repre¬
sented by the universal which we are considering. This
universal is indeed their universal whole. From this it is
evident that the Pr. which is true of all the enumerated
parts is also true of this universal whole, since in virtue of
the very definition of the universal (that which is one in
many) every predicate common to many subjects belongs to the
universal which represents these subjects (which is one in
them) in relation to this predicate.

(a) It is apparent, then, that when the enumeration of

parts is taken as sufficient the mind can and must conclude
from the parts to the whole. For in supposing that the
enumeration is “ sufficient ” we are in fact supposing that
we know that the enumerated parts are really represented
in relation to the predicate in question by the universal
which we are considering and not by another. (For
this reason the ancients considered induction by suffi¬
cient enumeration as induction by virtually complete
enumeration.)
*(b) Only by reason of this presupposed condition is
inductive inference a true inference (consequentia formalis
inductive, as we said above). In order to be a formal
sequence (see above, No. 63) induction presupposes a
certain condition on the side of the matter. An induction
such as “ Peter is mortal, therefore every man is mortal ”
 276 LOGIC

is a material sequence if we do not know from some other

source that mortality is of itself a characteristic which
depends upon the essence ; it is a formal sequence if we
do know this fact.

(2) But how can the condition presupposed here be

realized ? How can the enumeration of parts be sufficient ?
How can we be sure that it is ? This question is the central
question of induction and concerns, not the logical principle,
but the metaphysical foundation of induction. Thus it
does not belong to Minor Logic, which considers only the
form of reasoning. We shall study it in Major Logic.
We shall only take note here that the conditions for a
The con¬
ditions for a
“ sufficient ” enumeration vary' according to the case.
sufficient
enumera¬
For instance, in relation to an essential predicate such as
tion vary
according
mortal it would, strictly speaking, be sufficient to cite one
to the case
single case : “ Peter is mortal, therefore man is mortal ”
(if we know through some other source that this is a ques¬
tion of an essential predicate, and that the fact that a living
being is mortal or immortal depends upon the inmost
constitution of its nature). On the contrary, in relation to
a non-essential predicate, such as the colour of the skin,
a very long enumeration of various subjects would be neces¬
sary in order to enable us to conclude : “ men are white or
yellow or black or red.”
We should note, too, before everything else that the
enumeration is sufficient when we have considered a sufficient
number of parts to know in a certain or in a merely probable
manner that the universal which represents them in relation
to the predicate in question is indeed the universal under
and of consideration. What is true of the enumerated parts will
itself
induction then be certainly or probably true of this universal whole.
concludes
in a merely It is obvious, in considering induction in itself, abstracting
probable
manner. from certain particular conditions or limit-cases (as those
of complete enumeration of which we shall speak below)
that, in itself, it admits of a certain zone of probability.
For example, when we said : “ Iron and copper and gold
and silver . . . conduct electricity,” it is certain that, in
relation to the Pr. “ conductor of electricity,” iron, copper,
gold, silver and their like, are the constitutive parts of a
 REASONING 277

certain universal whole X. But is this universal whole really

the subject metal itself, or is it not a more restricted universal:
“ metal answering to such and such determined physical
or chemical conditions,” so that a metal might be found
which did not answer to these conditions and therefore did
not conduct electricity ? We cannot affirm this with abso¬
lute certitude, and the inductive minor : “ The universal
which represents iron, copper, gold, silver, etc., in relation
to the predicate conductor of electricity is the universal
metal,” is but a probable proposition.
The reason for this is that, in virtue of the very structure
of induction, the mind in this reasoning does not identify
two concepts by means of a third, a procedure which pro¬
duces perfect certitude—it identifies two concepts (S. and
Pr. of the Conclusion) by means of an enumeration of
singular or particular subjects each of which it identifies
with the predicate-concept, and from which it ascends to a
concept (the subject-concept) which represents them all in
relation to the predicate under consideration. By the light
of abstraction, the mind immediately seizes this universal
subject as a whole realized in these singular subjects. But
with the exception of certain special conditions, it seizes
it neither as belonging solely to these singular subjects and
their like, nor as being unable to comprise anything beyond
them.
Thus, by its very structure, induction admits of the pos¬
sibility (destroyed only in certain particular cases) of a
deficiency on the side of matter. But, as we saw above, this
does not prevent it from being a true and formal inference
(as inductive). Let us keep in mind that inductive inference is
other, and has another end than syllogistic inference, and
that the mind does not see the same way in induction as it
does in the syllogism. In showing to the mind, in the middle
term, the reason for the identity of the extremes, the syllo¬
gism compels it to see this identity, by the light of the
premisses. In showing to the mind, in the enumeration of
parts, the matter wherein the extremes are identified, induc¬
tion compels it to see, by the light of abstraction, the
universal subject to which the predicate belongs (perhaps
on the condition that it restrict this subject). Thus it
 278 LOGIC

authorizes rather than necessitates the mind to posit the

conclusion.
The Rules of Inductive Reasoning. Among the particular
rules that may be assigned to induction from the point
of view of Minor Logic, that is, from the point of view of
the form or the correctness of reasoning, we shall signalize
only the following two :
(1) The enumeration must be sufficient, if not, the
inference will not be formal. The argumentation : “ Peter
and Paul and James ... is French, therefore every man
is French ” would be a defective reasoning.
(2) When a singular or particular term is related to a
subject whose suppositio is particular (determinate) we do
not have the right to make this term universal by an
inductive ascensus, even if the enumeration is sufficient.
For example, do not say : “ Some saint did not .display
this type of heroism, and some saint did not display this
other type of heroism, nor some other this type, nor some
other that type . . . , therefore some saint did not
display any type of heroism.” Nor again : “ Someone
ignorant of Logic can avoid this mistake, and someone
ignorant of Logic can avoid this mistake, and someone
else this one, and some other that one, therefore someone
ignorant of Logic can avoid every mistake.”
The precepts (the rules of Bacon and Stuart Mill)
concerning the use of inductive reasoning in the natural
sciences are often called “ rules of induction.” The study
of these precepts belongs to Critique (a propos of the
Methods of the Sciences).

B. THE DIVISION OF INDUCTION

induction 99. division of induction. Induction is complete or

or?n“om-U incomplete, accordingly as the parts of the universal whole
accordingly which is the subject of the conclusion have or have not
oftheparts been completely enumerated. Obviously, incomplete induc-
the'con-°f tion is by far the more frequently used. When the parts
have°or in question are the singular data of sense experience, as
been com- they usually are in the natural sciences, it is impossible to
enumerated. enumerate them completely, since the human mind cannot
pass in review the indefinitude of individual cases.
 REASONING
279
All the examples of induction given hitherto were examples
of incomplete induction. Do not allow this expression “ incom¬
plete induction ” to be misleading ; it in no way signifies The most
frequently
unfinished or badly finished induction ; it is but an abbre¬ used
induction
viation of “ induction by incomplete enumeration.” Now the is incom¬
plete induc¬
enumeration of parts therein may be tion
(wherein the
enumera¬
INCOMPLETE tion may be
sufficient or
insufficient).
and nevertheless
SUFFICIENT,

and whenever the enumeration is sufficient it is valid and

formal. True, as we shall see in Major Logic, that it is
often difficult to know whether or not a particular incom¬
plete enumeration is sufficient, or at least to arrive at this
conclusion with certitude.
On the contrary, when the enumeration is

COMPLETE

it is obviously sufficient. Since we have enumerated all the In complete

induction
parts of the universal whole, the latter is evidently the the
enumera¬
subject which represents them in relation to the predicate. tion is
always
For example, given the following examples of complete sufficient.

induction :

Plants and beasts and men breathe,

and the universal that represents plants and beasts and
men is : living body,
therefore every living body breathes.

Or again :

Sight, and touch, and hearing, and taste, and smell,

has a corporeal organ.
And the universal that represents sight, and touch, and
hearing, and taste, and smell, is sense.
Therefore every sense has a corporeal organ.

From these examples we see that the nature of complete

induction, its structure and manner of inference, are the same
as those of complete induction, so that the division into com¬
plete induction and incomplete induction is not an‘ ‘ essential
 28o LOGIC

one. Complete induction is rather a limit-case of induction.

If we consider induction from the point of view of Minor
Logic, as an inference, we find its purest (that is, its clearest
and simplest) type in complete induction. For the enumera¬
Incomplete tion of parts, which must be sufficient in order to meet the
sufficient
induction is demands of the form of inductive reasoning, is manifestly
a virtually
complete so in complete induction, and every sufficient enumeration
induction.
is, in truth, a virtually complete enumeration. But if we con¬
sider induction from the point of view of Major Logic, as
an argument or proof, another means of proof (locus arguendi) is
added to induction properly so-called. For here, indeed, we
pass from the antecedent to the consequent, not only in
virtue of the induction itself (in vi inductionis), but also in
virtue of a reasoning founded upon the equivalence of two
terms (ab aequivalenti ad aequivalens) .1

*Thus the two (complete) inductions given as examples

above have their counterpart in a reasoning with the
following formulation :

(1) Every plant and every beast, and every man,

breathes,
but “ every plant and every beast and every
man ” is equivalent to “ every living body,” 2
therefore every living body breathes.
(2) Sight, touch, hearing, taste and smell have a
corporeal organ,
but “ sight, touch, hearing, taste and smell ” is
equivalent to “ every sense,” 3
therefore every sense has a corporeal organ.

This reasoning is a syllogism in which the enumerated

parts properly constitute a middle term. (Such is not the
case in induction as such, wherein the enumeration of
parts is not a term, which is one and the same in the Major
and the Minor, but leads to a term, a universal subject
which figures as such only in the Minor : “ sight, and

1 Cf. John of St. Thomas, Log., p. 174.

Or again, according to the normal formulation of the syllogism : “ but
every living body is plant or beast or man.”
Or again, using the normal formulation of the syllogism : ” but every
sense is sight, touch, hearing, taste or smell.” 7
 REASONING 28l

touch, and hearing, and taste, and smell, has a corporeal

organ, and the universal which represents sight and touch and
hearing and taste and smell is sense. . . “ Peter, and
Paul, and James, is endowed with speech, and the
universal which represents Peter and Paul and John, and
James, etc., is man. . . .”)
A reasoning of this kind, founded upon the equivalence
of two terms, is to be found with every complete induction,
but must not be confounded with the inductive inference
itself. On the contrary, it masks this inference, whose
structure is different and whose mean is not a term but
the enumeration of parts itself in so far as it introduces
the mind to a universal. Undoubtedly there is an equiva¬
lence at the foundation of induction, but it is not the
equivalence of one term with another term, it is the
equivalence of a plurality of parts with a universal term
which represents them. Induction as such is always
founded upon the supreme principle : what is true of
many sufficiently enumerated parts of a universal subject
is true of this universal subject.

Complete induction is a true inference, a true argumentation,

by which the mind acquires new knowledge. If many
modern authors have denied this it is, 1. because, as the
result of nominalistic prejudice, they have failed to recognize
the nature and value of the universal,1 and thereby the Complete
induction
entire processus of human knowledge, and 2. because they is a true
and
have understood induction only from the point of view of legitimate
inference.
the parts of a collective whole, that is by completely destroying
it. It is one thing to know that each of the five senses has a
corporeal organ and another to know that the sense, this
nature which I call the sensitive faculty, has a corporeal
organ ; just as it is one thing to know that Peter and Paul
are mortals and another to know that man is mortal. By
the universal truth which concerns the nature or quiddity
common to the enumerated parts, we implicitly possess the

1 Again, we are sometimes misled by the over obvious examples which logicians
ordinarily use in order to more clearly elucidate the form of argumentation.
From this point of view the traditional example of the syllogism : “ Every
man is mortal, but Peter is a man, etc.,” would also lead us to think that the
syllogism does not further knowledge.
282 LOGIC

raison d’etre of the considered property (and we can some¬

times disengage it explicitly later on). We said above that
incomplete induction passes not from some to all, but
from some to every, which is a passage from the sensible to
the intelligible. Complete induction passes from each to
every, from all the parts to the universal, to the sphere of
intelligible necessities which is realized in each part ; and
this is also to rise from the plane of the sensible to the plane
of the intelligible.

(a) Complete induction is often called Aristotelian

induction, and incomplete induction Baconian induction,
and it is sometimes maintained that Aristotle and the
ancients knew only the former, the latter having awaited
the advent of Francis Bacon 1 or John Stuart Mill 2 to
be revealed to man. In reality the ancients placed prin¬
cipal emphasis upon complete induction because, as we
have indicated in the text, they found in it the type of
induction which, by its extreme simplicity, offered the
maximum advantage from the point of view of logical
elucidation as well as from the point of view of pedagogical
exposition, and because, understanding the word “ com¬
plete ” not only of that which is formally complete, but
also of that which is virtually complete, every legitimate
induction is “ complete.” Nevertheless, they were
thoroughly acquainted with incomplete induction as the
use which they made of it abundantly testifies, and they
did not lose sight of it in their Logic. Far from having a
narrower notion of induction than ours Aristotle, as we
remarked above (No. 97 b), had, on the contrary, a
broader and more comprehensive notion of it.
Aristotle treats of the logical mechanism of induction in
the Prior Analytics (/, 2, Chap. XXIII) ; he also speaks of
it in the Topics (I, 12, wherein he is obviously thinking

1 Bacon, the Chancellor of England (1561-1626), who was never more

than an amateur scientist, exerted a profound influence upon the trend of
modern ideas by his Novum Organum (1620) and his De Dignitate et Augmentis
Scientiarum (1623), wherein he used the inductive method and the natural
sciences as a weapon against ancient philosophy.
2 In his System of Logic (1843), John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) undertook to
construct on nominalistic principles, a logic in which induction holds the
preponderant position.
 REASONING 283

of incomplete induction), and in the Posterior Analytics

(I, Chap. XVIII). He teaches that, in order for the induc¬
tion to be valid, the parts contained under the universal in
question1 must be enumerated in their entirety, because he
understands thereby, as Averroes has explained, that these
parts must be enumerated in their entirety zither formally
(complete induction) or virtually (incomplete induction).
It follows from the foregoing that a sufficient enumeration
is, in fact, virtually complete enumeration, since it informs
us that the universal in question does indeed represent
the enumerated parts in relation to the considered predi¬
cate, and consequently contains no other parts except
these and parts similar to them.
That this is the true thought of Aristotle is apparent
to anyone who has read with care the twenty-third
chapter of the Prior Analytics. It follows from the very
illustration which he uses (man, the horse and the mule
are long-lived, therefore every animal without bile is
long-lived), which in his eyes precisely constitutes a
sufficient but incomplete induction ; for in the Historia
Animalium (II, 15, 506 a 20) and in the De Partibus Anima-
lium (II, 676 b 26, sqq., 77 a 15—b 1), he names many
other animals—roe, fallow-deer, seals, dolphins, etc., as
being animals without bile.2 The sentence : “ we must
apprehend C (the mean of induction) as made up of
all the particulars, for induction proceeds through an
enumeration of cases ” (68 b 27, Pr. Anal., Oxford,
1928) signifies exactly that the enumeration can be taken
as if it were complete, that is, it is virtually complete.
Among the scholastics, the theory of incomplete induc¬
tion was treated especially in the thirteenth century, by
Albert the Great (Commentary on the Prior Analytics,
1. II, tract VII, Cap. 4, and on the Topics, 1. I, tract III,
Cap. 4 ; etc.) and in the seventeenth century by John
of St. Thomas (Log., Ia Pars, Sum., 1. II, Cap. VI, p. 16;
1. Ill, Chap. II, p. 52 sqq. ; Illustr. q. VIII, a. 2, p. 172 sqq.).

1 St. Thomas expresses himself similarly, in Analyt. Post., II, lect. 4, and he
is obviously speaking there of either virtually or formally complete enumeration.
Cf. also Artistotle, Anal. Pr., I, 30, 46 a 18.
2 Cf. Hamelin, le Systime d’Aristote, p. 257.
 284 LOGIC

(.b) General Schema of the Division of Induction. Legitimate

induction, that is, induction by sufficient enumeration, is
divided into complete and incomplete. Taking into account
induction by insufficient enumeration (illegitimate induc¬
tion, wherein the sequence is not valid) and “ formal
induction ” which is not true induction,1 we have the
following table :

DIVISION OF INDUCTIVE REASONING

, rr- . f complete ^ legitimate

’ \ incomplete / induction
INDUCTIVE real
REASONING by insufficient enumeration ^induction ^
[apparent.“ Formal induction ”]

C. REASONING BY RESEMBLANCE

IOO. REASONING BY RESEMBLANCE OR BY ANALOGY, (i) A

reasoning by resemblance or by analogy (exemplum) is a
partial or imperfect induction in which the mind passes from
one or several singular facts (or from a particular enuncia¬
tion) not to a universal conclusion, but to another singular
or particular enunciation 2 which it infers in virtue of a
resemblance :

Paul was cured of his headaches by this medicine,

therefore John will be cured of his headaches by this
same medicine.
The monkey is cured of tuberculosis by this particular
serum,
therefore man will be cured of tuberculosis by the same
serum.
A reasoning
by analogy This reasoning does not constitute an irreducible type
is an
imperfect of argumentation, it may be reduced to induction as the
induction
which imperfect to perfect.
concludes
from the (a) Undoubtedly a reasoning by resemblance may be
particular
to the par¬ resolved into a complex reasoning : induction (by
ticular in
virtue of a insufficient enumeration) -f a syllogism.
resemblance.

1 Cf. above, No. 96, 4.

2 Cf. Aristotle, Anal. Post., I, Chap. I, 71 a, 10 ; St. Thomas, lect. 1, 1, n. 12.
 REASONING 285

Paul was cured of his headaches by this

medicine,
therefore everyone suffering'
INDUCTION from headaches will be cured
by this medicine,
but John suffers from head- syllogism
.aches,
therefore John will be cured
by this medicine.

In reality, however, in a reasoning by resemblance the

mind concludes from the particular to the particular
not by means of a universal law but by means of the
resemblance between the two cases in question :

Paul was cured of his headaches by this medicine,

and the case is similar for John as for Paul,
therefore John will be cured of his headaches by
this medicine.

It is as a rough draft of induction, an induction which

stops mid-way, and which, instead of terminating in the
universal of which the particular case stated in the Major
is a subjective part, terminates in another particular
case, because in the Minor the mind did not ascend to
this universal itself but only to something much more
general and much less determinate. That is, it ascended
to that which is in truth less proper and most common as a
reason of argument—to the resemblance which unites the
particular case under consideration to another par¬
ticular case, without being able to say if the one and the
other are, in regard to the predicate, both contained
under a same universal “ reason.”
(b) The fact that the reasoning by resemblance goes
from the particular to the particular does not in any way
constitute it as an example of what Stuart Mill and the
nominalistic logicians call an inference from the particular
to the particular. There is no inference from the particular to
the particular. We never find a direct union of the particular
to the particular in the reasoning but only in the order
of images and of sense knowledge (“ the association of
 286 LOGIC

images ” and by these images “ the association of ideas ”

in man). In reasoning by resemblance, as in every
reasoning, there is a universal concept (precisely that of
the resemblance between two cases). The reasoning of the
learned man, who thinks that a particular law of the reflec¬
tion of sound is no doubt applicable to the reflection of
radiating heat because the two cases resemble each other,
or that dew must have the same cause as the vapour
which appears upon a pitcher of cold water in the summer¬
time because the two cases resemble each other, is
altogether different from the association of images in
virtue of which a scalded cat fears cold water or a watch¬
dog barks at every beggar.
Do not con¬ (c) Reasoning by resemblance is ordinarily called
fuse
reasoning reasoning by analogy. But we must be careful not to con¬
by analogy
with fuse it with what is called analogical knowledge. Reasoning
analogical
knowledge. by analogy and analogical knowledge are two entirely different
things. In a reasoning by analogy, the analogy, which desig¬
nates a more or less accidental resemblance, refers to the
manner of establishing a conclusion, to an inference of
which it constitutes all the force (and the insufficiency).
In analogical knowledge, the analogy refers to a concept and
to the things in which it is realized ; it is, at least in the
analogy of proper proportionality,1 a property intrinsic to
the concept itself. Consequently, if one of the things
signified by an analogous concept (for example, created
being) is within our immediate range, and the other is
not (for example, uncreated being) we can know the
second by the first as “ by a mirror.” This knowledge is
undoubtedly inadequate, but it may be absolutely certain.

(2) It is evident that reasoning by resemblance can furnish

only probable knowledge, not certainty. It plays an immense
role in discovery or invention. But recourse to the more
perfect types of reasoning (the syllogism, or induction by
sufficient enumeration) is necessary in order to stabilize
scientific judgment.
(3) What is ordinarily called an example or comparison
is scarcely more than a rough draft of a reasoning by resem-

1 The question of analogy will be treated in Major Logic and Metaphysics.

 REASONING 287

blance, whose object is not to express a more or less probable

conclusion, but only to illustrate a proposition and to make
it more sensibly manifest.
This is the reason for which the truth of the thoughts
we express is absolutely independent of the comparisons
which we use in order to make them more clear. The
illustrations we choose may be false in themselves, but
they are good if they serve in the manifestation of a truth.
Thus it is in so many of the charming comparisons which
St. Francis of Sales borrows from the natural history of the
ancients : “ And even as the rainbow touching the thorny
aspalathus renders it more fragrant than the lily, so the
redemption of Our Lord touching our sorrows, renders
them more profitable and lovable than original innocence
could ever have been.” 1

1 St. Francis of Sales, Trailt de VAmour de Dieu, Bk. II, Chap. V.

 APPENDIX

PRACTICAL SUGGESTIONS

I
logical algebra. As we shall see in Major Logic, the
system which is currently called the algebra of Logic refers
to a certain art of substituting, for the work of reason, the
methodical use of ideographic (logistic) signs. The founda¬
tions of this discipline are in themselves absolutely foreign
to true logic or the art of reasoning, and, among most
logisticians, spring from a general conception (“ Logic of
Relation ”) which is destructive of a sound philosophy of
reasoning.
Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent us from imagin¬
ing an altogether different and much less pretentious
logical algebra, constituted in conformity with the principles
of traditional logic, which would provide the logician with
a system of artificial signs especially adapted to the reflex
analysis of reasoning.
This logical algebra would certainly not pretend to
displace language, which is the direct expression of the
work of thought, nor to furnish the means for a logical
calculus which would dispense with thinking. It would
limit its aims to the facilitation of the labour of logical
reflection for the logician, by translating verbal propositions
into a system of more complete and more precise technical
signs (under this special aspect of the reflex study of the
processes of the reason).
It would, moreover, be extremely useful, by the very
fact that it would make logical properties sensibly evident
and facilitate the use of logical rules. We are convinced
that it would be of particular service, from the pedagogical
point of view. If the professor would, in teaching Logic,
contrive to construct such a system of signs, in union with
his pupils, he would find therein the best means of keeping
288
 APPENDIX 289

them interested, arousing their attention, and assisting

their memory.
As an example, for the sole purpose of showing the way in
which we could set about to do this, let us select some ele¬
mentary signs such as the following :
T to indicate the identification of the Pr. and S. in
an affirmative proposition,
X their separation in a negative,
• •

T or X a suppositio taken in relation to ideal existence,

T or X a suppositio taken in relation to real existence,
• •

a capital letter at the beginning of a word to indicate that

the term is taken universally,
a parenthesis, a term taken particularly,
brackets, a singular term,
the sign —>, to indicate an inference (“ therefore ”).

Obviously this list could be considerably extended. But

even with signs as elementary as these it is easy to elucidate
a good many interesting points. Thus, in order to translate
the syllogism “ Every man is mortal, but Peter is a man,
therefore, etc.,” into this system of signs, we would say :

Man T (mortal)
Peter T (man)
•

—> Peter T (mortal)

•

Setting forth the syllogism in this way shows forth the

fact that the singular minor (and similarly the conclusion)
have a suppositio taken in relation to real existence, and also
the fact that it affirms an essential Pr. of the S.1
Simple conversion would be translated by the following
symbols :
A X B
B X A,
or :
(a) T (b)
(b) T (a)
1 This is regularly the case in singular propositions, as we said above (84
II, § 4) concerning some universals.
290 APPENDIX

clearly showing that in such a case there is no inference

properly so-called, but simply a different expression of
one and the same truth (see above, No. 68, 1).
Partial conversion (per accidens) would be translated by
the symbol
A T (b)
(b) T (a)
which shows that partial conversion repeats, in an implicitly
diminished fashion, the same truth as the original proposition
(see above, No. 68, 2).
In translating the passage of a universal affirmative to a
singular in this system of signs

A T (b) — [a] T (b)

• •

(for example : “ Every man is mortal, therefore this man

is mortal ”) we perceive that, in order to be able to posit
the second member, we must know that [a] exists.1 In
other words, we must state the existence of the singular
subject [addere constantiam), and say : “ Every man is
mortal, and this man exists, therefore this man is mortal ”
(see above, Chap. Ill, section 2, note 72).
Syllogisms in Darapti, such as those used as examples,
p. 231, would have as their symbols :
Bat T (wings)
Bat T (mammal)
—> (mammal) T (wings)

Poet T (artist)
Poet T (man)
(man) T (artist)
This shows that the conclusion must be taken in the same
(“ existential ” or “ ideal ”) sense as the Major—and also

1 A fact which is hot implied in the first member of the conversion, even if
it be given an existential meaning, as we have done here. (Every man is
mortal, and men exist.) The suppositio here is indeed taken in relation to real
existence, but signifies only that men exist ; it does not signify that this deter¬
minate man exists. To pass from A to (a) it is not necessary to mention the
existence of the subject ; to pass from A to [a] such mention is necessary.
 APPENDIX 291
makes evident the way in which Darapti is reduced to Darii,
by the conversion of the Minor :

C T (b)
Darapti - C T (a)
(a) T (b)

G T (b)
Darii (a) T (c)
(a) T (b)
We could very easily verify all the rules of the reduction
of moods by this same method (see above, No. 79).
Finally Descartes’ ontological argument (see above, pp. 63-4)
would be translated in the following manner :

Absolutely perfect T (necessarily existing)

[God] T (absolutely perfect)
—> [God] T (necessarily existing)

This makes the flaw in the argument sensibly apparent (the

suppositio is taken in relation to ideal existence in the ante¬
cedent and in relation to real existence in the consequent).

II

division of the course. In a philosophy course of

eight or nine months’ duration, this treatise on Minor
Logic could be divided into nineteen lessons, in the fol¬
lowing manner (omitting all the nos. and paragraphs
preceded by an asterisk).

I. Preliminaries (Nos. 1 to 4). . . .

II. Simple Apprehension. Notion of the concept.
Extension and comprehension of the concept
(Nos. 5 to 13).
III. The different kinds of concepts (Nos. 14 to 18).
IV. Notion of the oral term.
The different kinds of terms (Nos. 19 to 25).
V. Language and thought. The definition.
Division (Nos. 26 to 33).
 APPENDIX

VI. The Judgment. General notions about the

proposition (Nos. 34 to 43).
VII. The different types of propositions : simple and
compound, affirmative and negative (Nos. 44
to 48).
VIII. Propositions de inesse and modal propositions.
The subject and predicate from the point of
view of quantity (Nos. 49 to 52).
IX. The opposition of propositions (Nos. 53 to 55).
X. The conversion of propositions (Nos. 57 to 58).
Review of the preceding assignments.
XI. General notions about reasoning (Nos. 60 to 65).
XII. Division of reasoning. “ Immediate inferences.”
General notions about the categorical syllogism
(Nos. 66 to 70).
XIII. General notions about the categorical syllogism
(continued).
Figures and moods. Division of the syllogism
by reason of its figure (Nos. 71 to 74).
XIV. Division of the syllogism by reason of its mood
(No. 75).
XV. Hypothetical syllogisms. The conditional syllo¬
gism (Nos. 86 to 88).
XVI. Division of the syllogism (Nos. 90 to 94).
XVII. Inductive reasoning (Nos. 95 to 98).
XVIII. Division of Induction. Reasoning by
resemblance (Nos. 99 to 100).
XIX. General review.

III

In studying each assignment given in the table above, we

would advise the student to read the larger type first, and
to add the study of the inset passages in a second reading.

IV

summaries. Summaries have been inserted in this volume

to help the student in preparing his lessons and to facilitate
review. The student should commit to memory that part
of the summary corresponding to each lesson.
 APPENDIX 293
V

themes. After each important section of this work,

exercises are to be found which may be varied at the pleasure
of the instructor. These practical exercises are absolutely
indispensable. Themes on any one of the following subjects
may be added :

Show the distinction between the three operations of the

mind, and the reciprocal relations existing between
them.
The extension and the comprehension of concepts (Paris).
The role of quantity in the judgment and the reasoning.
Is a Logic that does not take extension into account
possible ?
The role and function of the verb to be from the point of
view of the logical analysis of thought.
The opposition and conversion of propositions.
Are there immediate inferences ?
Explain the logical mechanism of the categorical syllo¬
gism. In what sense may it be said that, in the syllo¬
gism, the mind goes from the general to the par¬
ticular ?
The figures and the moods of the syllogism.
Comment of the words of Joseph de Maistre : “ The
syllogism is the man.”
The conditional syllogism. Wherein does it differ from
the categorical syllogism ? Is it a primary form of
reasoning ?
Induction. Its logical structure. Is it reducible to the
syllogism ?
Show that language serves not only in the expression,
but also in the very exercise of thought (Lille).
 ALPHABETIC INDEX
(The numbers refer to the pages)

Absolute terms, 49-50 Bamalip, 189, 190, 224, 225-31

Abstract terms, 49 Bannez, 41
Abstraction, 20, 27-8, 273 Baraliplon, 189, 190, 224, 225-31
Accident, 26, 70, 71, 227-9 Barbara, 189, 190, 192, 193, 202, 204,
conversion by, 142,164-5, 168, 225, 209, 224, 225, 236, 253
229-30 Baroco, 190, 191, 197, 204, 205
Accidentalis, suppositio, 70, 71, 227 Being, copulative and judicative
Activity, immanent and productive, function of verb to be, 85. The
17,84,152 verb to be always signifies
Addere constantiam, 231 existence, 50, 51-3, 61, 85, 86,
Albertus Magnus, 216, 268, 269,283 225-9
Alexander of Aphrodisias, 167, 187, of reason, 19-21
216 real, 21
Algebra, logical, 288-91 and ideal, actual and possible.
Alienatio, 73 See Existence.
Amabirnus, 141 Belief, 84, 89
Ammonius, 8, 216 Bergson, 7, 56, no
Ampliatio, 73, 228, 229, 230 Bocardo, 190, 200, 204
Analogical knowledge, 286 Boethius, 216, 238, 245
Analogy, reasoning by, 286 Boole, 222
See Resemblance. Bossuet, 90-1
Antecedent, 149, 151, 153, 154, 159- Bramantip, 224, 225-31
60, 239
Apodictic judgments, 114
Appellatio, 74 Cajetan, 17
Apprehension, simple, 3-4, 12-16, Calemes, 190
20 Camestres, 190, 196, 203
Argument and inference, 158-9, 272 Categorical proposition, 100
Argumentation, 94, 152, 154-5 Celantes, 189, 190
Essential law of all, 159-60 Celarent, 189, 190, 194, 203, 204, 223,
Aristotelian induction, 282 253
Aristotle, 8, 9, 10, 16, 40, 54, 55, 59, Cesare, 190, 196
114, 134, 136, 149, 154, 160, 162, Chrysippus, 238
166, 167, 169, 175, 177, 178, 186-7, Cicero, 254
201, 205, 209, 216, 238, 244, 249, Circles, Euler’s, 171-2, 173, 175, 192-
253. 254. 259, 263, 269, 273, 282, 200, 218
283, 284 Collective, purely, point of view in
Ascensus and Descensus, 67, 68, 234, logic, 27-8, 41, 42, 210-2, 221,
264, 265, 278 269-71, 281
Assent, 83-5, 89 terms, 49
Assertoric judgments, 114 Communis, suppositio, 65
Averroes, 216, 283 Completa, suppositio, 66
Composition and division, 83, 84-5,
91
Bacon, 278, 282 Comprehension, 20-7, 39, 56, 119-
Baconian induction, 282 24, 126-8, 171-5
Bain, 143 Comprehensivists, 173
295
296 INDEX

Concept, 17-30 Denotation, 22

formal, 17, 19 Descartes, 63, 64, 158, 190, 206
mental, 17-20 Descensus, 67, 68, 265, 266, 267. See
objective, 18-20 Ascensus.
Concepts, absolute, 34 4 De secundo et tertio adjacente. See
abstract, 32-5 Proposition.
collective, 35-6, 38-9 Determinate2, suppositio, 65-6, 278
common, 37 Dictum and Modus, 113
complex, 31-2 Dictum de omni, dictum de nullo, 177,
concrete, 32-5 179-80
connotative, 34 * Differentiations, specific and indi¬
distributive, 37-8 vidual of genus, 26
divisive, 35-6, 38-9 Dilemma, 255-7
incomplex, 31-2 — Dimatis, 190
inferior, 28-30 Diminutio, 74
particular, 37 Disamis, 63, 184, 190, 199, 209
singular, 37 Discourse, 93-6
superior, 28-30 for practical intention, 94
universal, 37-8 Discursus secundum causalitatem et
Conceptus ultimatus, 32 secundum successionem, 151
Conclusion, known at the same time Disjuncta, suppositio, 65-6, 67, 68, 69,
as the premisses, 149-50 7°
Concrete terms, 49 Disjunctive proposition. See Proposi¬
Confusa, suppositio, 66 tion.
Connotation, 22, 24, 25, 26, 34 Disjunctives, suppositio, 65-6, 67, 70
Connotative terms, 49-50, 219 Disjunctive, descensus, 67
Consequent, 149-50, 154, 158, 159, Disjunctus, descensus, 68
160, 239 Distributa suppositio, 66, 67, 69, 70
Contingence. See Modal proposi¬ Distributive terms, 57
tions. Division, of things, of names, 80,
Contradiction, opposition of, 130, 81
131. 132, 133. 134. 135-6, lg6 Divisive terms, 49
principle of, 159, 176 Dominczak, 114
Contraposition, 142, 143, 165, 167-8
Contrariety, opposition of, 130, 132,
133, 134-5, >66 Edentuli, 141
Conversion of propositions, 128, 142- Enthymeme, 249
5, 164, 225-6, 230 Enunciation, 84-90, 96-8
Copula, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 60, 61, 85, judicative, 86-7, 89-90
86, 95, 98, 99-102, no, in, 170, simply enunciative, 86-8
220, 225 Epicheirema, 190, 253
Copulata suppositio, 66, 67, 68, 70 Equipollence, 145
Copulative proposition. See Proposi¬ Essence, 12-13, 22-3. See Nature.
tion. Eudemus, 167
Copulativus, descensus, 67 Euler, 171, 172, 218
Copulatus, descensus, 67-8 Example, 284, 286-7
CoUTURAT, 225 Exceptiva, suppositio, 66
Exceptive proposition. See Proposi¬
tion.
Dabitis, 190 Exclusive proposition. See Proposi¬
Darapli, 168, 190, 198, 209, 224, 225- tion.
31, 268 Existence, actual and possible, real
Darii, 168, 190, 194, 202, 209, 223, or ideal, 16, 19-20, 52-3, 61,
265 62-3, 86, 92, 225, 227
Datisi, 190, 199, 223 imaginary, 61
Definition, 5, 6, 24, 76-80, 125 Existential, propositions with an
descriptive and essential, 24 existential or non-existential signi¬
of a name, 79 fication, 61, 62, 225-9
of a thing, 77-8 Exponible propositions. See Pro¬
De inesse, 111-2. See Proposition. position.
 INDEX 297
Extension, 22-8, 39, 43, 57, 119-20, Impossible, reduction by the, 202-5
122-4, J25, '26, 127, 171-5, 206- Impropria, suppositio, 64-5
13, 265, 266-7 Incompleta, suppositio, 66
Extensivists, 28, 264 Indefinite judgment, 110-1
Indirect propositions. See Proposi¬
tions, unnatural.
Fapesmo, 190, 225 Individual, 58. See Singular.
Febi/eruxis, 204 Individuum vagum, 42, 66, 165, 218,
Feiapton, igo, 198, 203, 225 219.
Ferio, 190, 195, 202, 203, 204 Indivisibilium intelligentia, 16
Frrison, 190, 200 Induction, 162, 258-84
Ferrariensis, 17, 41 and abstraction, 273
Fesapo, 190, 225 complete, 278-84
Festino, 190, 196, 203, 204 formal, 270
Fi gures incomplete, 278-9
of the categorical syllogism, 185- insufficient, 274-5
205 irreducible to the syllogism, 266-9
of the conditional syllogism, 238- sufficient, 275, 276
Inference, 154, 158, 271-2. See
4°
of the conjunctive syllogism, 237 Sequence.
of the disjunctive syllogism, 236-7 from the particular to the
comparative value of the Three particular, 285-6
Figures, 205-6 immediate, 162-9
The fourth Figure, 187, 189, 190 Inherence, 95. See Relation.
Form (formality), 33, 34 Inverse of a proposition, 146
Form and matter, 8-9. 85, 96, 98, 99,
121-2, 155-8, 170, 185, 220, 266-7,
268 James (William), 7
Forma, vi., 157 Javelli, 189, 226
Francis of Sales, 287 John of St. Thomas, 16, 17, 41, 47,
Fresison, 190 48, 53, 60, 62, 69, 87, 88, 92, 98,
Frisesomorum, 189, 190 108, 115, 149, 150, 151, 153, 158,
Future, contingent, 97, 135-6 160, 226, 231, 264, 272, 273, 274,
280, 283
Judgment, 2-3, 7, 82-93, J53> 220
Galen, 186, 187 “ actual and virtual,” 84
Garrigou-Lagrange, 84 and Proposition, 84
General and particular, 42-5 hypothetical, 82-3
Goblot, 22, 24, 25, 26-7, 44, 84, simplicity of the, 90
91, 114, 206, 212, 245, 246' Truth and falsity in the, 92
Goclenius, 255
Goudin, 108
Gredt, 48, 202, 235 Kant, 10, 84, 91, no, 114, 178
Keynes, 24, 25

Hamelin, 28, 40, 136, 166, 173, 238,

249, 283 Lachelier, Jules, 117, 118, 119, 165,
Hamilton, 10, 126, 173, 207, 213, 167, 168, 178, 180, 187, 201, 228,
214, 214-22 232. 234. 251, 268
Hugon, 84 Ladd, Miss, 225
Hypothetical propositions, 100 et seq. Laetare Romanis, 204
Lambert, 173, 202
Language, 45, 46, 48, 55-6, 58-9,
Idea, 18, 26, 27. See Concept. 232-3
Identical propositions, 168 Leibnitz, 7, 58, 75, 95, 96, 112, 121,

Identity, principle of, 159, 176 122, 158, 167, 168, 171, 173, 187,
Iliace, 141 252
Immanent activity. See Activity. Le Roy, 7, 56
Impossibility. See Modal propositions. Levi Ben Gerson, 216, 217
298 INDEX

Logic, i, 2, 39-40, 75, 121, 122, 126, Padoa, Alessandro, 222, 223-4, 225,
128, 168, 172-3, 175, 213, 214-5, 226
216, 221-2, 223, 224, 231-2 Partial conversion. See Accident.
of inherence or of predication, and Particular, use of the word, 40-5
of relation, 95, 251 concept, 37
Major, 9, 11 Particular proposition, 115, 118, 119,
Minor, 9, 11 129, 231, 246
Pure, and applied, to substitutive value, 64, 68, 69, 125,
Logistics, 75, 158, 222-33 126, 216, 217, 278
Parti-partial, parti-total, 214, 216,
218, 219-20
Peano, 222, 225
MacColl, 222, 225, 226, 233
Peirce, 222
Macfarlane, 222
Personalis, suppositio, 65, 71
Major, 149, 150, 170, 171, 207-10
Plato, 27
Major Term, 170
Materialis, suppositio, 64
Polysyllogism, 253
Matter. See Form. Possibility. See Modal propositions.
Mean of the argumentation, 169, Prtedicatum inest subjecto, 112, 120, 175
in plus, 217,218
177-8, 210, 243-4, 260, 263, 264,
Prantl, 216, 238, 245
265, 277, 278, 283, 284-5
Meinong, 84
Predicate, 50, 69, 98-9, 119-27,
219-20
Middle Term, 170
Mill, John Stuart, ix., xi., 206, 207,
Quantification of the, 126, 213—
211, 215, 217, 221, 278, 282, 285 22
Minor, 149, 150, 170, 171, 207-10 Predication, 74-5, 95, 217
Minor Term, 170 Premisses, 170
Modal propositions, 111-4 Principle of identity, of contradiction.
Opposition of, 137-41 See Identity, Contradiction,
Conversion of, 142-7 of triple identity, 176, 234-5
Monads, 121 first, of induction, 274-8
Mood, 112-3 Principles, first, of the syllogism,
Moods 175-80, 200-1, 202, 239
of the categorical syllogism, 185, formal and material, 9
188-200 Problematical judgments, 114
of the conditional syllogism, 240 Proposition, the, 3, 5, 6-7, 8, 96-100,
of the disjunctive syllogism, 237 220, 221
Reduction of, 200-5, 213, 223-5 affirmative, 110-11, 129
Morgan, de, 217, 222 causal, 106
“ collective,” after Lachelier, 117—
9. 232-3
conditional, 101, 102, 104-7
Nagy, 225
conjunctive, 101, 106
Naturalis, suppositio, 70, 71, 227
copulative, 101, 102-3, *35
Nature, universal, 23, 27-8, 41-2, 65, with a verb-predicate (de secundo
115-d, 118, 178, 212, 270, 271, 272 adjacente) and with a verb-copula
Necessity. See Modal propositions. (de tertio adjacente), 51-3
JVesciebatis, 204
Proposition, convertible, 68, 123, 124,
Nominalism, 24-5, 28, 210-11, 269
125, 143-4. 173. 209, 217
JVota not<e, 178
de inesse, 111-4, 175, 249
Noun, the, 51, 54, 56 disjunctive, 101, 102, 106, 135
enunciative, 86-90, 96-8
exceptive, 101, 102, 107
Obit terras, 204 exclusive, 101, 102, 107
Occam, 216, 226 existential, and non-existential
Odiebam, 204 (ideal), 61, 62, 63, 225-9
Ontological argument, 63 exponible, 107
Operations and products of the mind, indefinite, 116, 117, 118, 127
3-8 judicative, 87-90, 97
Opposition of propositions, 128-37 modal, 111-4
of modal propositions, 137-41 negative, 110-11, 126, 129, 246
 INDEX 299
Proposition, particular, 115, II6, 119, Signification, 60, 62
127, 231, 246 Sigwart, 114
rational, 106 Simplex, suppositio, 65
reduplicative, 101, 102, 107 Simplicity of the judgment, 90
relative, 106 of the proposition, 91, 92
singular, 44, 116, 127, 131, 144, Singular, 58
190, 231, 246 concept of the, 41
universal, 116, 117, 118, 119, 127, Singularis, suppositio, 65
129, 225, 227-9 Sorites, 254
unnatural, 123, 124, 187 Specificative, 107-8
Properties, 24, 27 Spheramque quolannis, 204
Propria, suppositio, 65 Stanley Jevons, 215
Purpurea, 141 Stoics, the, 238, 251
Suarez, 17
Subalternation, 132-3, 135, 136, 165,
Quality, essential, of the proposition, 225, 229-30
Sub-contrariety, opposition of, 130-1,
110
accidental, of the proposition, 119 132, 134, 135, 166
Subject, 34, 50, 70, 98-9, 119-28,
Quantification of the predicate, 126,
213-22 219, 220
real, and logical, 95-6, 112, 245
Quantity of the proposition, 114-9,
Subjective parts, 29, 263, 265-6
246. See Conversion, Opposition,
Substitutive value. See Suppositio.
Syllogism.
Suppositio, 36, 59-72, 142, 226-9, 231,
232
Syllogism, the, 161
Rabier, 187 categorical, 169-233
Ramus, 167 conditional, 239-47
Reason, the, 1 conjunctive, 237-8
Reasoning, 1-2, 8-11, 148-54 demonstrative, 247
deductive. See Syllogism, disjunctive, 236, 237
inductive. See Induction, erroneous, 248
by resemblance, 284-7 expository, 233-5
Reciprocal, 146-7 hypothetical, 235-6
Reduction of the imperfect moods of modal, 248-9
the syllogism, 200-5, 213, 223-5 oblique, 249-53
Reduplicative, 107, 108 probable, 247
Relation, Logic of, 95, 251 sophistical, 248
Renouvier, viii., xi., 147 and induction, 262-9
Resemblance, reasoning by, 284-7 Value of syllogisms in Darapti and
Resolutio prioristica, posterioristica, 9 in Baralipton (Bamalip), 223-31
Restrictio, 73, 109 Syncategorematic Term, 49
“ Retort,” to, an argument, 256
Richard, T., 179, 234, 269
Rodier, 40, 173, 175 Term, 20, 45-9
Rondelet, 166, 167 categorematical, 15, 49
Rougier, Louis, 53, 225, 245, 268 complex, 50, 77, 93
Rules of induction, 278 enunciative, 48-9, 51, 56
of the syllogism, 180-1 incomplex, 50
Russell, Bertrand, 95, 96, 222 indefinite, 57
particular, 57
singular, 57, 65
Sanseverino, 248 syllogistic, 49, 56, 57
SCHROEDER, 222, 225, 226 syncategorematical, 49-5°
Scotus, Duns, 17 universal, 57
Segner, 173 and the concept, 46, 47-6
Sequence, 63, 71, 154-60, 239 Properties of the term in the
formal, 155-60, 272, 277, 280-1, Proposition, 58-76
282 Tertullian, 255
Sextos Empiricus, 206, 211 Theophrastus, 167, 238
300 INDEX

Thomas Aquinas (saint), 1, 5, 14, 16, Veiled man, sophism of the, 75

17. 18, 34,37. 42,45,47,53,54, 62> Verb, the, 51-6, 170
79, 83, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 98, 125, Vi forma, 157-8
131, 136, 148, 149, 160, 205, 215, Vincent Ferrier, 60
216, 218, 220, 249, 259, 274, 283,
284
Toto-partial, toto-total, 214, 216,
218, 219-20 Waitz, 238
Truth, 16, 92, 96, 97 Whitehead, 233
Truths, eternal, 61, 227, 228 Whole, potential or logical, 29
Wolff, 267
Word, mental, 17, 84-5, 91. See
Ultimatus. See Conceptus. Concept.
Universal proposition, 115, 116, 117,
118,129,225,227-9
substitutive value, 66, 125, 126, 216,
219 Zigliara, 14

v.
38-297